Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Middle East

Iain Wright: What recent assessments she has made of the threat posed to regional stability in the middle east by Hezbollah.

Andrew Dismore: What representations she has made to Syria and Iran on their support for Hezbollah.

Margaret Beckett: We are gravely concerned about the crisis in Lebanon. Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah and other extremist groups is encouraging extremism, threatening the stability of the region and putting peace in the middle east further out of reach. We call on Syria and Iran to stop their support for Hezbollah and end their interference in Lebanese internal affairs in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680.

Iain Wright: I agree with every word that the Foreign Secretary said. It is clear that Syrian and Iranian influence on Hezbollah undermines the ability of the region to embark on peace, stability and prosperity. Hezbollah's principal weapons are terror and violence, but it also has a hand in aspects of the running of normal Lebanese life, such as the raising of taxes and the running of schools. That being so, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to build international support to ensure that the extremist influence of Hezbollah is minimised, not only militarily, but in civic life in Lebanon?

Margaret Beckett: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's concerns and comments. There is now a widespread view in the international community that we need to take a fresh look at the situation in Lebanon. The international community needs to turn its attention to the implementation of resolution 1559 in particular, and to what can be done to help to support and strengthen the democratically elected Government of Lebanon, so that they are better fitted not only to rebuild what has been destroyed, but to conduct their country's affairs in a way that will give them peace and security in future.

Andrew Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hezbollah is Syria's proxy in Lebanon, and that it has been heavily armed by Syria and Iran, which thus bear considerable responsibility for the continuing tragedy in Lebanon and for the missiles that are raining down on Israeli cities? Does she agree that Iran has engineered the crisis to divert attention from its lack of response to the international community on its offer concerning civil nuclear power—no doubt the inference being that there is a nuclear weapons programme there? Does she agree that Hezbollah must be disarmed in accordance with UN resolution 1559 if a repetition of the present disastrous confrontation is to be avoided in future?

Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concerns, as I think does the whole House. I entirely take his point about the potential influence of Iran and Syria and their supplying of weapons, and his point about the timing of the issues. He alleges that the events were perhaps engineered by Iran, but whether they were or not, they are remarkably convenient for that Government.

Peter Tapsell: To what extent was our British Prime Minister in collusion with President Bush in giving Israel the go-ahead to wage unlimited war for 10 days, not just against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, but against civilians in residential Beirut, drawn from all faiths and nationalities—a war crime grimly reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw?

Margaret Beckett: Since I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations, there is clearly nothing with which my right hon. Friend would have been in collusion.

Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance about the part of the population that needs to be looked after at the moment—the Christians of the Lebanon? Is she aware that some of the Protestant churches in that country have opened their doors as a sanctuary to Christians, but there is difficulty in getting food to them? Can she do something to help?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and of course I understand that all the communities in Lebanon are at risk and are placed at hazard by present events. One of the things to which, in recent days, we have given a great deal of attention, and are pressing with a great deal of urgency, is the potential for humanitarian action and relief. I anticipate that that will be high on the agenda of the core group meeting in Rome, which I shall attend tomorrow, but I will keep the right hon. Gentleman's words in mind.

Mike Gapes: Ministers have been in the region and the US Secretary of State is now there. What discussions have there been about the proposal for an international force in the south of Lebanon, and is that being worked up in such a way that it will be introduced in the near future, rather than waiting several months until the conflict has subsided?

Margaret Beckett: There have been extensive discussions over many days—since very early on after the crisis began—about what contribution an international force could make, how it could be deployed and the range of arrangements, and that work continues intensively. As my hon. Friend and, I think, the House will fully understand, it will take time to put in place a substantial force. What I take to be the underlying thrust of his question is that we should all be seeking as early an end as possible to any hostilities or violence, and that that should not be linked to a full force being put in place, which might indeed take some time to arrange.

Julian Brazier: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that only last year the Lebanese Government saw the back of the Syrians, who arm and organise Hezbollah, financed by Iran? The Lebanese Government have done very well disarming a number of other militia groups. Given that we have so far been unable to disarm the militias in Afghanistan or Iraq, is it right that Israel should be allowed to bully that entire country and put it back 20 years, in the words of one Israeli Minister, in order to get back at Hezbollah, the real villains?

Margaret Beckett: The chief thing with which I did not disagree in the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) was the concern that he expressed for the civilian population in Lebanon, as indeed people are concerned about the civilian population in Gaza. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will appreciate that it creates difficulties when missiles are deliberately sited in civilian centres. That obviously leads to potential suffering— [Interruption.]—and death, as has just been said. But I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that what is happening to Lebanon is a tragedy, where the so-called cedar revolution was so frail and needed nurturing. I can assure him that it is very much part of all the intensive discussions that are taking place to consider how that Government can be sustained and supported. I believe that Prime Minister Siniora and other members of his team will be in Rome tomorrow.

David Winnick: Leaving aside any absurd comparison with what the Nazis did in Warsaw—that hardly helps the situation at all—is my right hon. Friend aware that people in the United Kingdom in the main had no time for Hezbollah and such organisations, but find it almost impossible to understand how Israel can act as it is, causing so many deaths and serious injuries to people who are in no way involved in Hezbollah? Is it not time that the United Kingdom——and one would like the United States also——to make it as loud and clear as possible to the Israeli authorities that what they are doing cannot be justified under any circumstances? That is the view, I believe, of the vast majority of people in this country.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend may be right that that is the widespread view in this country. I would only say to him that since the beginning of the crisis there has been a consistent thread of appeals for the utmost restraint—on both sides, by the way—from the G8, the Foreign Ministers Council of the European Union, and the European Council itself, all calling for a cessation of violence and conflict, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend seeks. I know from reports, for example from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, that there has indeed been a policy of deliberately siting missiles in the heart of civilian populations. I do not say that that is a reason for anything. I simply say that it is bound to cause difficulty when those missiles are continually raining down on Israel, and clearly there is pressure on Israel to attempt to take out those missile sites. That is a strong contributory factor to the terrible events that are taking place in Lebanon.

Michael Moore: We welcome the hard-hitting comments made by the Minister for the Middle East during his visit to the region at the weekend. We would go further and repeat the view, as Kofi Annan has said, that there should be an immediate ceasefire. Hezbollah and Hamas must return the soldiers and stop their attacks. But will the Foreign Secretary accept that, for as long as the United States, and, by extension, the United Kingdom, tolerate the disproportionate military response by the Israelis, the diplomatic efforts will be undermined completely?

Margaret Beckett: I can only say again to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks through the statements that have been made, which have always included a call for the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers as well as a cessation of violence and hostilities—the European Council called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the G8 called for an immediate cessation of violence—he will see that everything is being done through diplomatic channels to try to create the conditions in which not only can there be a ceasefire, but such a ceasefire can be maintained and can be durable. That, I fear, is probably the key to any kind of good outcome to the problems that we see at present.

Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sheikh Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, has said:
	"Hezbollah is not fighting a battle for Hezbollah or even for Lebanon. We are now fighting a battle for the Islamic nation."
	Does she believe that the international community has the resolve to deal with such a threat?

Margaret Beckett: Certainly, Sheikh Nasrallah and his colleagues have done everything that they can to exacerbate what was already an extremely dangerous situation. I do not believe that the goals that they have set themselves are in the long-term interests either of the Islamic nation as a whole or of people in the middle east, because they seem to concentrate only on fear and terror, and it is on the road to peace and peace negotiations that, in the end, all parties to this conflict will have to end up, and the sooner they get there, the better for everyone concerned.

Michael Jack: The Foreign Secretary might have heard a representative of the Syrian Government on this morning's "Today" programme indicating that, in their judgment, a lasting settlement to this human tragedy and crisis could come about only if the Syrian and Iranian Governments were involved. Could the Foreign Secretary give the House an assessment of that statement?

Margaret Beckett: I heard a brief account of that, and certainly if what he is saying is that the Syrian and Iranian Governments have it in their power to contribute to a potential peaceful outcome, who can disagree with that? I just wish that I saw any signs that at the moment they wished to do so.

Gerald Kaufman: In rightly condemning the terrorism of Hezbollah, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that no party to this conflict has clean hands or occupies the moral high ground, that the father of the Israeli Foreign Minister, with whom my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East had talks, was a terrorist leader who organised the blowing up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem, to which the Israelis have just disgracefully unveiled a memorial plaque, and that it is absolutely essential that we follow up the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to solve this conflict and end the killing?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view that the best possible outcome is, as he says, for those who understand that the way forward is through peaceful negotiation and through the road map being heard in the region and beyond it, and for a move towards such negotiations to take place.

William Hague: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel's demands for the return of kidnapped soldiers, an end to Hezbollah's rocket attacks and the implementation of resolution 1559 are wholly legitimate, but that its case will be greatly strengthened by desisting from attacks on purely civil infrastructure and on other areas of Lebanon?
	On the international buffer force that has been proposed, given that British troops are not available——and American troops perhaps not appropriate——and that the French have said that the idea is premature, is she confident that there can be put in place a sufficiently capable and well-equipped force when necessary?

Margaret Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point that Israel's legitimate demands are viewed against the prism of events taking place in Lebanon and, indeed, in Gaza, which there is a tendency for people not to mention, but where also we have grave concerns. The words "buffer force" do not fall happily on people's ears in the area, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly right to identify, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the Chair of the Select Committee did, that this will be time consuming and not easy, and that the mandate of such a force, and its nature and construction, will be a matter of difficult negotiation. I expect that that will be very much a part of the discussions in Rome tomorrow, but that is why I believe that one of the strong efforts that we must make is to see what can be done now to ameliorate the situation, partly and perhaps primarily in the short term through humanitarian means, but also what we can do to help to improve matters, because it will undoubtedly take some time to answer the very pertinent questions that he has just put.

William Hague: On Hezbollah's international links, the Foreign Secretary has already acknowledged that in this crisis we must not lose sight of Iran's nuclear programme. Is she confident that consensus will be maintained among the permanent members of the Security Council, that momentum will not be lost, that we will see swift agreement on a Security Council resolution under chapter VII of the UN charter and, if necessary, that any early sanctions on Iran will include a ban on the sale of military equipment?

Margaret Beckett: The extent to which consensus, unity and momentum have been maintained among the permanent five has been striking and for a lot of people, including Iran, surprising. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is vital both to try to maintain that unity and not to lose the momentum. Talk of sanctions is, perhaps, a little premature. If he casts his mind back to our detailed statement to Iran, which is now in the public domain, he will recall that we deliberately set out a gradual progression of steps in order to make it easy to draw back if there was a response. He has rightly identified a possible key area, if sanctions have to be considered.

International Arms Trade Treaty

Anne Snelgrove: What progress has been made towards an international arms trade treaty; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: We are committed to securing an international treaty on the trade in all conventional arms, and we intend to introduce a resolution in the United Nations first committee this autumn to progress the initiative. With other supportive countries, we are now circulating an initial draft resolution, which we hope will stimulate debate and help to secure the broad international support required.

Anne Snelgrove: That is welcome news, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for her work in that area. Does she agree that the language on human rights in the resolution must be robust? Will she reassure me that the UK and other signatories will press for the strictest possible guidelines on the arms trade? And does she agree that it would be much better for the security and safety of the world if the UN could report on the international arms trade treaty before 2008?

Margaret Beckett: Of course, I take my hon. Friend's observations very seriously, and I share her view that we must do as much as we can to make the resolution as strong as possible. An initial draft text is being circulated this week by a consortium of nations from across the globe, of which the UK is one. She is right to try to set a time line for about 2008 for some of those issues to be considered further. However, the process will take time, and it is important for the House to recognise that we are at the preliminary stage of the discussions. Nevertheless, I hope that the core principles can be agreed in this Parliament, but there will undoubtedly be tough negotiations about the detail.

Robert Key: Will the Secretary of State press ahead with all speed and diligence, confident in the knowledge that the lobbying is the work of not only pressure groups, but a vast number of ordinary people in this country, including, of course, the Christian Churches and the defence industry? The Defence Manufacturers Association and those involved in defence exports want to see a treaty, so they can differentiate from those who are following the law and those who are cheating, which destroys the lives of innocent people around the world.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an extremely important point. As he rightly says, there is huge popular support for this move. Hon. Members will have already seen that in their constituencies, and I expect them to see more in future. He is also right to identify that there is support not only among non-governmental organisations but, crucially, in the defence industry. That is an enormously important feature of this campaign and one that should assist in its success.

Andy Reed: I welcome the statement that we are making some progress in this respect. There has been a bit of a lull over the past few years in trying to negotiate an international treaty. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that small arms, in particular, are central to everything that is done? As she knows, hundreds of thousands of people around the world are killed and maimed every year by the small arms that are sometimes brokered beyond these shores, even under our existing law. Will she ensure that that loophole is closed as part of the international treaty?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have given a great deal of attention to that; indeed, we have restarted the process in Geneva. He is spot on in identifying this as a key area where action is needed. However, because such arms are so widespread, it is also an area of considerable sensitivity that needs a great deal of attention, support and work, which we will indeed give it.

Zimbabwe

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet her EU counterparts to discuss the impact of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Ian McCartney: Zimbabwe is one of the greatest concerns to the European Union and it is regularly discussed with partners. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last did so on 15 June and will be doing so on an ongoing basis. EU sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe will be discussed when they are due for renewal in February 2007. Those sanctions keep Mugabe's regime isolated and under pressure, and they are wholly warranted by his grotesque misgovernance. We continue to do all that we can to help the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered so much under Mugabe's regime.

Henry Bellingham: Hundreds of thousands of urban dwellers in Zimbabwe are having their homes bulldozed, the farming sector has been destroyed, people are starving, and inflation is at more than 1,000 per cent., with bank transactions measured in trillions—all because of a mad, evil dictator. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that at a time when the world's attention is focused on the middle east, and rightly so, the plight of Zimbabweans is not forgotten?

Ian McCartney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only is their plight not forgotten but as a country we are doing several things—not only in continuing with the sanctions, important as they are, but in assisting the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe through hundreds of millions of pounds of aid to feed a country that was once southern Africa's food basket but is now unable to feed its own nation. We are giving millions to help the quarter of the population who are suffering from HIV/AIDS.
	We are working as a Government with civil society, trade unions and others who are bravely each day speaking up and speaking out about their fellow citizens in Zimbabwe, and we are making practical resources available to them. Our front-line staff are working in the country each day, in very difficult circumstances, to provide the necessary support for civil society. In addition, we are working with the front-line states, particularly those in southern Africa, to try to ensure that they do more to end this evil regime and return democracy to Zimbabwe.

Kate Hoey: Have Her Majesty's Government made any representations to Kofi Annan and to the African Union about the recent appointment of the former Tanzanian President, Ben Mkapa, as the so-called mediator between Zimbabwe and the UK? Is he aware that Mkapa has consistently called for the ending of European Union sanctions, and does he accept that this appointment will do nothing other than satisfy Mugabe, because he has merely been a stooge of Mugabe?

Ian McCartney: If Mr. Mkapa can persuade Mr. Mugabe to undertake policy changes, we would support that. Mr. Mkapa has made no representations to us, nor has he sought our support. One thing that is certain is that, working with the United Nations, we will continue to pursue the issue of the lack of real progress in Zimbabwe. I hope that my answer to the previous question gives my hon. Friend certainty about how seriously we take the situation in terms of working in diplomatic and practical terms to assist individuals and Zimbabwe itself. It is important to build bridges. Zimbabwe is in this condition because of the actions of the Zimbabwean regime towards its own people, infrastructure and society. The sooner we get international action to resolve that, the better.

Graham Brady: The Minister rightly assured my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that Zimbabwe is not being forgotten at a time when events in the middle east are drawing attention elsewhere. When the Foreign Secretary raised Zimbabwe on 15 June, what specific measures were proposed to the European Union to increase the pressure on that country? What is the next set of proposals for the subsequent meeting that the Minister mentioned?

Ian McCartney: As I said in my earlier answers, the review of the sanctions will take place in early 2007. They were renewed for the fourth time earlier this year. I have no sense that they will not be maintained or that South Africa will not work with us more positively in the intervening period to try to find additional ways in which we can not only put more pressure on Mugabe but witness his taking some action on the changes that need to take place.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the meeting in June. As I said in my first answer, the EU reviewed how the sanctions are working, whether they are effective and whether member states are co-operating with them—the answer to that is yes.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall come to the House to set out in detail the discussions that we will hold between now and February with the United Nations, the front-line states and others to try to secure a more effective way of dealing with issues internally in Zimbabwe. Hon. Members should rest assured that, whether we are considering civil society, the aid programme or the health programme, we are committed to continuing to involve ourselves effectively on a day-to-day basis with the citizens of Zimbabwe.

Falkland Islands

Ian Austin: What discussions her Department has had with the UN on the Argentine Foreign Minister's recent representations to Kofi Annan on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Geoff Hoon: The British deputy permanent representative to the United Nations met the Secretary-General on 16 June 2006. The meeting covered several issues, including the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom referred to the presentation by the Falkland Islands councillors at the C24 UN decolonisation committee on 14 June 2006 and made it clear that the UK's position on sovereignty remained unchanged.

Ian Austin: Argentina's sabre-rattling, hostile policy on the Falklands and the decision to establish a commission to win control of the islands serves only to set back Argentinian-UK relations. Is not next year's 25th anniversary of the heroic liberation of the islands a great opportunity to commemorate and pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the UK armed forces, who won not only the conflict but the right of the Falkland islanders to live in freedom and in a democracy? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind the Argentinians again of the importance of the principle of self-determination?

Geoff Hoon: I agree that the anniversary next year will be an important opportunity to commemorate the deaths of not only British but Argentinian soldiers. Britain's armed forces would also want to recognise the sacrifice that was made on both sides of that conflict. I was the first British Minister to lay a wreath at the memorial to Argentinian soldiers. It is important that we acknowledge the sacrifice that all our armed forces made in that conflict. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that self-determination remains absolute. The UN charter makes it clear that it is for the people of a territory to determine their future. That is why I made it clear that the UK's position has not changed at all.

Graham Stuart: Self-determination has to be the key principle on which the future of the Falklands is based, as the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) and the Minister said. I ask the Minister to send the clearest message from the House that the Falklands will never be negotiated away except on the principle of self-determination.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry if my previous remarks left any room for doubt. Self-determination is a fundamental principle of the UN charter. For the avoidance of doubt, we have made it absolutely clear that the position of the Falkland Islands will not change without the consent of the people of the Falklands Islands.

Gordon Prentice: When I was in Argentina last November, it was clear that the Argentinians would not renounce the claim on the Falklands—we take that as a given—but the Ministers to whom I spoke also made it clear that they had no intention of going to war against the UK. Given that that is the case and that we now have a democratic Government in Buenos Aires, why do we need to spend £120 million a year on maintaining a garrison in the Falklands?

Geoff Hoon: The answer is similar to the answer that I gave earlier: for the avoidance of doubt. My hon. Friend is right to say that successive democratically elected Argentine Governments have made clear their determination to resolve this matter peacefully, and we maintain a garrison in the Falkland islands to ensure that that promise is carried out.

Madagascar

Ben Chapman: What progress has been made on the accreditation of the non-resident British ambassador to, and the honorary consul in, Madagascar.

Ian McCartney: Mr. Speaker, I must warn you that in this answer I shall have to speak French on two occasions. I have been practising.
	Our requests for agrément in respect of the British high commissioner to Mauritius to be our non-resident ambassador to Madagascar, and for authority to appoint an honorary consul in Antananarivo, remain with the Malagasy authorities. We continue to push for swift accreditation. My Department has discussed the matter with the Malagasy chargé d'affaires in London twice since March, most recently on 29 June 2006. We currently have no intention of reopening our embassy in Madagascar. I think that is five out of 10.

Ben Chapman: Given that Africa has recently been our focus of attention, that the President of Madagascar is a prime example of good governance, that the 28 non-governmental organisations based there are now developing trade and investment interests and want an embassy there, and that the Malagasy have recently opened an embassy in London, would it not be best to avoid the past mistake of closing the embassy and then having to reopen it? Would it not be better to stop the accreditation of a non-resident ambassador and honorary consul and to reopen the embassy forthwith?

Ian McCartney: Africa is obviously a main priority for the Government, and that means that we need to modernise our network. We need to ensure that our network is placed in the most effective areas, to maximise our ability to represent the interests of this country. That has meant that posts have been closed in some areas, and enlarged in others, such as Pretoria, Kinshasa, Khartoum, Kigali and Addis Ababa. We are putting the investment in, but it must be appropriate investment in appropriate places. The appropriate investment in this case involves the appointment of the non-resident ambassador and the honorary consul, as I have explained, and I hope that we can reach an agreement on this matter pretty quickly so that we get on with the job that we want to do in that area.

Lebanon

Andrew MacKay: If she will make a statement on the situation in Lebanon.

David Jones: If she will make a statement on Israeli actions in Lebanon.

Kim Howells: Like the rest of the international community, the British Government are deeply concerned about the situation in Lebanon. Intensive diplomatic efforts are under way to create a durable ceasefire. There are a number of initiatives that could help to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Lebanon and northern Israel, including—as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said—Hezbollah handing back the kidnapped Israeli soldiers immediately.

Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the whole House will agree that it was right for the Minister to have travelled to Lebanon last week, and we are grateful that he did so. As this dreadful human tragedy unfolds, caused primarily by Hezbollah's terrorist activities within the state of Lebanon against the Israelis, does the Minister agree that the only long-term solution is an international peacekeeping force? I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary was cautious earlier in saying how long that might take, but may I urge her and the Minister to remember that speed is essential if we are to avoid a complete humanitarian disaster?

Kim Howells: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I agree that we have to be very careful about the way in which we approach the subject of a stabilisation force, or of buffer zones. There are mixed feelings about such prospects across the middle east. He is also right to focus on the key issue of the Hezbollah militia. It was mentioned earlier that other militias have given up their arms in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the only powerful militia that has not done so. It is important to say that the people of Lebanon have suffered on many previous occasions from the likes of Syria and Iran fighting their war against Israel by proxy on the sovereign territory of Lebanon. They must stop doing that. I hope that the nations of the middle east, as well as the powerful western countries, bring all their diplomatic skills and influence to bear on Syria and Iran to ensure that they stop giving arms and sustenance to Hezbollah.

David Jones: While acknowledging the undoubted right of Israel to defend itself against terrorist attack, does the Minister agree that the damage inflicted by Israel on the civilian population of Lebanon is wholly disproportionate to the damage that it has sustained? Will he continue forcefully to voice the concerns of many of those who have hitherto regarded themselves as friends of Israel?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is reflecting a great deal of opinion across the world. Israel must be careful to understand, as I am sure it does, that it is fighting not just a military but a political campaign. Opinion on the Arab streets, and on Muslim streets in general, is fed by those who want to portray in the worst possible light the effects of what has been a savage and harsh military campaign by Israel on a great part of Lebanon. However, I also saw for myself the way in which a ruthless militia, Hezbollah, locates its men, missile sites and supplies right in the middle of domestic housing. It does not care about the people who are dying there. It will use them in whatever way it can as propaganda for its campaign, and ultimately for the campaign of Iran and Syria. We must try to understand that the situation is not simple—there is not the wish to destroy a nation—but the results are horrendous. People are dying in Haifa as they are in Lebanon. We must find some way of constructing a durable peace.

Mohammad Sarwar: The Minister will be aware that, according to the ICM poll published in  The Guardian today, 63 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom believe that the Prime Minister has tied Britain too closely to the White House, and they expect the British Government to stand up to the US. Although I agree that Hezbollah has no respect for human life, whether Muslim, Jewish or any other, the Israeli response is disproportionate and has targeted the entire Lebanese population. Is not it time for the British Government to call on the United States to call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire?

Kim Howells: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have worked closely in discussions with the United States and many of our other allies. If he is trying to ask me to denounce a nation that has fought for democracy, democratic rights and freedom for a century or more, I cannot agree with him.

James Clappison: Is it not essential to remember how this conflict began, no matter how tragic its consequences? It was deliberately initiated by Hezbollah, after stockpiling missiles, apparently siting them in civilian areas, as the Minister has said, and clearly using them against civilian targets in Israel. Is it not essential, if there is to be a long-term, durable, sustainable peace, that the problem of Hezbollah be addressed, so that people on both sides of the Lebanese-Israel border can live in peace?

Kim Howells: Yes, I agree with every word of that. The problem must be addressed, and the Lebanese Government must be helped, by any nation that can do so, to build up their capacity, through whatever means, to disarm Hezbollah—in the best possible way, to get Hezbollah to give up its weapons and, if necessary, to take those weapons off Hezbollah. As long as there is an alternative Government in Lebanon who decide their own foreign policy, how on earth can the democratically elected Government of Lebanon extend their remit to the frontiers of Israel? It will be impossible. That is why it is essential for us to help that Government in whatever way we can, hopefully by peaceful and diplomatic means, to ensure that Hezbollah gives up its weapons.

Tony Lloyd: Many people were genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East's forthright comments over the weekend, when he was in Lebanon. They introduced real balance, in the form of proper condemnation of the humanitarian abuses on both sides of the conflict.
	Was not my hon. Friend absolutely right when he just told the House that, in the long run, the answer to Hezbollah is not a military victory for Israel but a strengthened Lebanese state that can control every aspect of life in Lebanon? The guarantee that we need is that we will not abandon Lebanon as the next crisis preoccupies us, and simply forget today's crisis.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend's words are wise. George Mitchell, a man with enormous experience in helping to negotiate peaceful outcomes, said on the "Today" programme this morning "Let us not come up with facile answers." A simple ceasefire will mean that the conflict will start up again in a week, a year, or two years, and people will suffer again and again.
	There has to be another way through this. We must construct a proper, sustainable peace for the region, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that one way in which we must do that is by building up the authority and capacity of the Lebanese Government.

Keith Simpson: When the Minister was in Beirut, he expressed his views forcefully, as he has in a number of our debates in Westminster Hall. He said:
	"The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people. These have not been surgical strikes.
	And it's very difficult, I think, to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used.
	You know, if they're"
	—he was referring to the Israelis—
	"chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation."
	The Minister pointed out that Hezbollah hides in urban areas, and is totally and utterly incapable of understanding the consequences for the Lebanese people. What advice does he give the Israelis now? How are they to deal with Hezbollah if they are not to engage in the kind of wider damage that is undoubtedly taking place?

Kim Howells: I am not a military strategist, and I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman is either. [Hon. Members: "He is!"] I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was just a good bloke. I hope that he accepts my apology.
	The position is very difficult to understand. While I was in Beirut, I heard a story about a bridge that the Israelis feared would be used to bring supplies to Hezbollah from Syria. I am not certain, but I believe that the bridge may have been paid for with European Union aid money. It certainly cost €70 million. I understand from everyone to whom I spoke that there was a big hole in one end of the bridge. The bridge was reparable in time, but instead it was attacked again and again until it had been utterly destroyed. I do not see the sense in attacking the Lebanese infrastructure in that way.
	Worse still, I heard of a Lebanese army barracks in which 17 or 18 engineers were killed. It was very close to the British ambassador's residence. If the aim is to go in and try to disarm Hezbollah, whether by persuasion or by force, where is the sense—tactical or otherwise—in dropping a bomb on the very force whose help is required in establishing law and order and extending the Government's remit right down to the Israeli border? It makes no sense. I made that view known to the Israelis—including the Israeli Foreign Minister—and I know that they realise they must be very judicious in the way in which they attack such targets if they are to win opinion on the Arab streets.

Burma

Stephen Crabb: If she will make a statement on the political situation in Burma.

John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the political situation in Burma.

Ian McCartney: We remain concerned about the political situation in Burma, which is unchanged. I summoned the Burmese ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and wrote to the Burmese Foreign Minister setting out our concerns in detail. I also raised Burma with the Governments of China, India, Japan, Thailand and South Korea and I met Juan Mendes, the UN special adviser for the prevention of genocide, to discuss the Burmese situation. Indeed, I invited Mr. Mendes to come here to Parliament to meet Members of both Houses and discuss their continuing concerns about Burma. I hope to able to arrange that in the near future, and we will continue to press for positive change in Burma.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for that reply and I encourage him to continue taking specific steps to build international support for a UN Security Council resolution on Burma, particularly in the light of the extension of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest in May and the continuing Burmese army offensive against the Karen people, which has resulted in the displacement of more than 18,000 individuals this year alone.

Ian McCartney: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He referred to a group of specific issues, which I also raised with the ambassador and with the Foreign Ministers of other countries in order to secure co-operative action in the region to get Burma to accept its international obligations. First, Burma should allow the UN to enter the country. Secondly, it should allow in the UN refugee administration and, thirdly, it should also allow a UN rapporteur into the country to investigate allegations of torture and other inhumane treatment against ethnic minorities. Countries in the region must take some responsibility for developing a comprehensive strategy to bring Burma into the public domain and to get it to live up to its requirements on human rights and for its own civil society. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am continually raising the issues that he mentioned with both the Burmese Administration and the countries around Burma, which could exert a greater influence than they have up to now.

John Bercow: I warmly welcome the Minister's robust answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb). Given that the remorseless bestiality of the military junta has caused the patience of the Malaysian Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Association of South East Asian Nations finally to snap, and given that no fewer than 313 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 902, calling for a UN Security Council intervention in Burma, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House today what particular steps he is taking to try to persuade Ghana, Tanzania and Congo-Brazzaville to back a robust resolution that will force the regime to stop subjugating its citizens and to start liberating them?

Ian McCartney: Again, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we support a proposal for a Security Council resolution on Burma and we are working closely not only with the United States, but with other partners on the Council to ensure that we have a full debate on Burma, which we hope will lead to a resolution. Our first objective—to answer the hon. Gentleman's main question—is to get Burma formally added to the UN Security Council agenda. To achieve that, we need nine votes and we are working with like-minded partners to secure those votes. I cannot yet tell the House that I have secured the nine, but we are close to doing so. I hope that, having achieved the nine votes, we can proceed to put the motion at the Council. That is a clear indication that the international community has not just lost its patience with Burma, but is prepared to take action to represent the needs of the Burmese people who are trapped in that country. They are powerless and voiceless and only we can help them to resolve their problems.

Si�n James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Burmese regime is propped up by the highest number of child soldiers in the world? It has been reported that the Burmese regime frequently apprehends boys as young as 12 at train and bus stations, markets and other public places, forcing them into the army and even to participate in executions. When he next meets the Burmese

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now allow the Minister to answer the question.

Ian McCartney: It is not normal to put into the public domain discussions with an ambassador, even of that regime. However, on the issue of child soldiers, I asked the ambassador to look me in the eye and tell menot as an ambassador or politician, but as a father and a grandfatherwhy so many of his children or grandchildren have had their childhoods stolen and how many of them are fighting an inhumane war against their own fellow children and fellow human beings instead of playing in the streets and doing the things that children take for granted in this country. He did not answer that question, but I looked him in the eye again and I asked him again and again, and I will continue to ask him until he rids his country of child soldiers.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, which is very impressive, but what are the Chinese doing? What discussions has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had with the Chinese? The key to putting pressure on Burma must be found in China changing its position and beginning to condemn that awful regime.

Ian McCartney: I can confirm that I have had three conversations with different representatives of the Chinese Governmenttheir ambassador, whom I will meet again soon, their Vice-Foreign Minister and their Deputy Foreign Minister, the latter of whom I spoke to only last week in Beijing. I have asked them to consider finding a practical way forward. They are obviously concerned about security on their own border. However, China and the other nations in the region have a direct responsibility not just to get fed up with Burma and its actions, but to do something about being fed up. I am having those delicate discussions on the basis of securing, first, a UN Security Council resolution and, secondly, co-operation to allow the UN to enter Burma freely and to start doing the work that we need to do there on behalf of the people of Burma.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As has been made clear in these exchanges, the Burma regime is one of the most inhumane in the world. The Minister has recently had high-level talks with the Chinese, who are key players in bringing about change, first, because of their major influence on ASEAN; secondly, because of their increasing trade with Burma, through their building of ports to gain access to the Indian ocean and through gas supplies; and, thirdly, because they are one of the key nations that are blocking a binding resolution. Precisely what discussions has he had with the Chinese to bring about a change in their attitude towards Burma, because they need to start taking a more responsible attitude in the international community towards bad human rights records in countries such as Burma?

Ian McCartney: I have had what can be best described, as a diplomat, as a rather positive discussion and

Keith Simpson: A frank exchange of views.

Ian McCartney: Yes, as the military strategist says. Why does a military strategist become a Member of Parliament? I can give an assurance that we asked our colleagues in China to do a number of things: first, to help facilitate access by the UN; and, secondly, to think seriously and to help facilitate a UN resolution and a resolution in the Human Rights Council on a better proactive dialogue to allow the various commissioners appointed by the UN to deal with Burma and to be able to do their jobs. We have yet to get a full response, but at least they are prepared to discuss it. Their recent actions in regard to Iran and North Korea are surely a really good sign of their being more proactive in the region on an international basis. By taking those two steps forward, I hope that we can take steps forward in terms of Burma as well.

Middle East

Ann Clwyd: If she will make a statement on the situation in the middle east.

Margaret Beckett: We are gravely concerned by the situation in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories. We are urging restraint on all sides and are working with international partners to secure a durable ceasefire. It is important that the abducted Israeli soldiers are released and that Israel acts proportionately, conforms with international law and avoids civilian death and suffering. Ultimately, to resolve the situation in both Gaza and Lebanon, we need to deal with the underlying causes, so we must get negotiations between Israel and Palestinians back on track and make progress towards the two-state solution.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If she recalls, there was a summit at Sharm el-Sheikh last year, and the Israelis promised to release Palestinian prisoners. However, there are still 9,000 Palestinians in detention or prison, including 400 children. In addition, 33 Palestinian Ministers and Members of Parliament are also in detention. The Israelis must understand that there cannot be peace and stability in that region unless they give the Palestinians their independence and their liberty.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is one of the more distinguished contributors for her record in all of these spheres, and I understand the concern that she expresses. I can tell her that, particularly with regard to the recent detention of Ministers and Members of Parliament, international concern has been expressed and there continue to be calls for their release. I can also tell her that the wider concerns that she expresses about Palestinian prisoners in general are shared, and that much discussion and negotiation is going on at the current time about all of these issues.

James Arbuthnot: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a ceasefire will be short lived unless both Hezbollah and Hamas agree to give up their weapons and agree to a ceasefire themselves, and that, sadly, neither looks like happening?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East said in response to earlier questionsand as Senator Mitchell said on the Today programme this morningit is of course the case that any ceasefire that is other than a ceasefire on both sides, and any ceasefire that does not have the capacity to be durable and sustainable, simply will not hold. The right hon. Gentleman is right that, sadly, there seems to be little evidence that either Hamas or Hezbollah has much interest at present in such a ceasefire.

Immigration Service

John Reid: Last week, I set out to the House our plans for transforming the Home Office and for rebalancing the criminal justice system. Today, as I promised, I return to the House with further proposals for reform of the immigration and nationality directorate, with the aims of making it fair, effective, transparent and trusted, and of rebuilding confidence in our immigration system. I will now set out our plan, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.
	In this area, as in others, we are not starting from year zero. For instance, I wish to thank the Home Affairs Committee and its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), for the work that it has done, and for its newly published report on immigration control. A number of its recommendations are reflected in the proposals that I shall outline today, and we will study the report carefully and respond in full in due course.
	Once again, I pay tribute to my predecessors for their significant achievements, which include the closure of Sangatte, the 72 per cent. reduction in asylum applications from their peak, the speeding up of the processing of asylum decisions from the 22 months that it took in 1997 to two months now, and achieving the tipping point target of removing more failed asylum seekers than those coming in.
	However, recent events have highlighted weaknesses within the IND, and we need to reform its systems so that they are truly able to meet the challenges of what are hugely changed circumstances. In approaching that, over the past six weeks wein particular my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and Ihave examined the immigration system from the perspective of the front line, by talking directly to more than 600 immigration workers, case workers and managers and consulting several thousand others about what they need to make the organisation work better. Their views have helped shape our plans for reforms, and they will continue to do so.
	To change the IND, I have set out four new strategic objectives. Our first objective is to strengthen our borders, to use tougher checks abroad so that only those with permission can travel to the United Kingdom, and to ensure that we know who leaves so that we can take action against those who break the rules. We will bring together resources, increased powers, new technology and the increased visibility that staff say they need to transform our border services.
	By 2008, we will have in place biometric ID requirements for the highest risk countries, taking fingerprints from all visa applicants from those countries. We will perform border checks on people before they travel to this country, targeting high-risk routes through effective threat and risk analysis. We will progressively reinstate exitin other words, embarkationcontrols in stages, starting with the higher-risk routes and people, identify who overstays and count everyone in and out by 2014. We will strengthen the powers and the surveillance capability of our border service to enforce our physical borders more effectively and to deter illegal entry, and make it a visible, uniformed presence.
	Secondly, we will enforce compliance with our immigration rules, removing the most harmful people first and denying the privileges of Britain to those who stay here illegally. We will double what we spend on enforcement and compliance by 2009-10 and we will expand our activity. For foreign national prisoners, we will require evidence of nationality during contact with the criminal justice system itself, link criminality more clearly to deportation, remove in-country rights of appeal, streamline our procedures and otherwise remove barriers to deportation and removal.
	A key challenge is to extend the United Kingdom's ability, in law, to deport or remove those who threaten our security. A proportion of those eligible for deportation or removal are not removed because the country to which they would be returned is considered unsafe, and because we are not currently able to balance the threat posed by an individual to our national security against the risk of mistreatment if the individual concerned is returned to their own country. We are prevented from making this balance by the Chahal judgment in the European Court in 1996before we had the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country. We are seeking to change this through our intervention in a Dutch case before the European Court. We want to be able to take into account the threat to national security and to be able to rely on assurances given by the returnee country.
	Changing the Chahal judgment is the essential requirement. But in any event, we intend to consult on making it easier to deport people under UK law within the terms of the judgment, limiting as far as possible the ability to stop the deportation of those whom the Government consider it necessary to deport or to remove for reasons of national security. We will redouble our efforts on deportation and removal, including through changes to the law, where necessary.
	We will also do much more on enforcement and compliance within the United Kingdom. We will work across government to shut down fraudulent access to benefits and services, and tackle illegal working. We will penalise rogue employers who employ illegal workers through fines and through seizing the assets of persistent offenders. We will do this in step with providing more efficient support to help respectable employers check who is entitled to be here. We will disbar company officers who are criminally liable for consenting to, or conniving in, knowingly employing illegal workers. We will make immigration a truly cross-government issue, with shared targets.
	Thirdly, we will fast-track asylum cases, remove those whose claims fail and integrate those who need our protection. We will continue to remove more failed asylum seekers who make unfounded claims, now that we have reached the tipping point. By the end of 2009, in three years' time, we aim to deal with 75 per cent. of new asylum casesgranting or removing, as appropriatewithin six months. In five years' time, by the end of 2011, we intend to deal with 90 per cent. within six months, and we have set out plans to achieve that. We will deal with the legacy of unresolved cases in five years or less, as I said last week. We will prioritise those who may pose a risk to the public and then focus on those who can be more easily removed, those receiving support and those who may be granted leave. All cases will be dealt with on their individual merits: there will be no amnesty.
	Finally, we will boost Britain's economy by bringing the right skills here from around the world and ensuring that this country is easy to visit legally, through managed migration. We will implement the points-based system to attract the workers and students we want to bring to Britain. We will exploit biometrics to help trusted travellers enter and leave the country faster.
	To deliver those four strategic objectives, we need to make radical changes to the IND as an organisation and to the environment in which it operates. We intend to do that in several important ways. We will strengthen and simplify our immigration laws to make the system more effective and give our work force effective powers to do the job we ask them to do. As a first step, we will take new powers, including to ensure that foreign national prisoners automatically face deportation, and to strengthen our border through inter-agency working. As a second step, we will radically reform and simplify the immigration laws, rules and guidance under which the work force has to work.
	We will also create a strong framework for delivery and accountability. We will therefore establish IND as a shadow agency from April 2007. It will be given the operational freedoms and the regional structure it needs to deliver its business, while being more clearly accountable to Parliament and the public. We will consult on streamlining the existing fragmented regulation and inspection regime by the creation of a new single immigration regulator to give an independent and consistent perspective on the performance of IND as a whole. And we will consult on setting up a new migration advisory committee, which would publish recommendations to Government on where in the economy migration should sensibly help to fill skills gaps, and provide an informed and non-partisan view.
	In addition to these proposals, we will introduce a range of measures, including strengthening IND's leadership and management at all levels, and a change of culture. In that context, I am pleased to announce that Stuart Hyde, an assistant chief constable with the West Midlands police, has joined IND as the new senior director for enforcement.
	These are outline proposals. Over the next few months, we will publish further details and we will act and consult where necessary. Some changes will happen quickly, others will take time. This is a long-term investment that will require endurance and persistence: it is not a quick fix. But we are committed to achieving a transformation in the way IND works over the next few years, so that we can deliver the services that Parliament and the public rightly expect. I command this plan to the House.

David Davis: I think that the word should have been commend. Perhaps the Home Secretary thinks that he is still at the Ministry of Defence.
	I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Much of what he announced is very sensible: it is also not new. The new asylum model, for example, was announced in February 2005. I also welcomed his intention to challenge the Chahal judgment last week. Indeed, can he now answer the question he twice failed to answer then, which was what he will do if the Chahal challenge fails? Most particularly, what will happen with the Prime Minister's comment, which the Home Secretary repeated today, that foreign prisoners will face automatic deportation? What will happen to that if the Chahal challenge fails?
	I have sat opposite three Home Secretaries, and each has talked tougher than the one before. However, they all discovered that tough talk was not enoughand they were the ones who created the system that the right hon. Gentleman called not fit for purpose. So what does the rest of today's announcement consist of?
	The Home Secretary has announced yet another restructuring of the immigration and nationality directorate. There is nothing new in thatwe have been here before as well. Over the past few years, I have sat here and listened time after time to talk of crackdowns, consultations, initiatives and action plans on matters ranging from bogus language schools to sham marriages, yet still we are faced with the current shambles.
	As I said, the Home Secretary said that the IND was not fit for purpose, but the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said that it was not fit for the future. The truth is that the Government cannot cope with their own past. The serious problems faced by the IND will not be solved by yet another reshuffling of the deck. They will certainly not be solved by Ministers implicitly blaming civil servants. The IND has been overwhelmed by the sheer scale of immigration into this country.
	In 2004, net immigration into the UK from outside the EU totalled almost 270,000 people. In addition, in the 18 months since EU enlargement, some 600,000 people have arrived from the accession states, 580,000 more than the Government estimated at the time. Moreover, 660,000 foreign workers were issued with national insurance numbers. That is interesting, given what the Home Secretary said about actions to be taken against employers, most of whom take ownership of an NI number as proof of a person's right to be here. The problem is squarely the Government's.
	Only last week, the Home Secretary said that we might have 450,000 failed asylum seekers, but that was just months after the Government denied that there were as many as 250,000 here. All those core problems arose as a direct result of deliberate and explicit Government policy decisions.
	To deal with them, the Home Secretary said that he will double the IND's removals budget. That is welcome, although it would be overdue even if it were to happen today, yet it is not due to happen until 2010. When will the extra funding begin? What will the increase be this year, and what will it be next year?
	Spending on the IND has increased by more than 400 per cent. since 1998, and the number of staff has almost trebled, although all the transfers that have been going on makes that figure hard to work out. What has been the result? A massive growth in immigration, both legal and illegala growth so big that the social consequences are beginning to worry even Labour Back Benchers. The Government do not have any clue about how many illegal immigrants are here, hundreds of foreign prisoners have been released on to our streets, and all of the problems result from a policy failure so huge that it has overwhelmed the system. The Government's policy is wrong, not just their administration.
	However, the most oppressed victims of the Government's policy are some of the immigrants themselves. They include the lorry load of Chinese immigrants who tragically died in Folkestone en route into the UK, or the 23 cockle pickers who died on the sands of Morecambe bay, or the illegal immigrants who live and work in often inhumane and dangerous conditions in our supposedly civilised country.
	Before the Morecambe bay tragedy, this Government had successfully prosecuted only 10 employers of illegal immigrants in seven years, even though the relevant laws were put in place in 1996. It took Morecambe bay and the resignation of the then Immigration Minister to end the Government's habit of turning a blind eye to the explosion of people trafficking and the massive trade in human misery that had blown up on their watch.
	I welcome any measures that will cut the amount of illegal working going on in this country, but we must understand that the powers will work only if they are used. They will be used only if the Government have the determination to deliver more than rhetoric on the issue, and are prepared to commit the necessary resources. If they do that, it will be a first.
	What other proposals have the Government made to deal with these problems? They are introducing embarkation controls, for which the Opposition have been calling for at least as long as I have been shadow Home Secretary. The Government eventually agreed to institute e-borders embarkation control in 2008, but we now understand that the process will not be concluded until 2014. That is too late. What is more, the system relies on a computer database and we all know how reliable Home Office computer databases are in terms of the speed with which they come into effect.
	Will the Home Secretary explain why we cannot simply reinstate a manual embarkation control system immediately? His proposal will not be in place to cope with the next EU enlargement and the large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians who will come to this country, including, in the words of his own Minister, 45,000 undesirablesthe Government's word, not mine. Can the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that his Government will not repeat their disastrous mistake over the first enlargements, and allow vast numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians immediate access to this country?
	No immigration policy will work as long as we have porous bordersthe words of the past Metropolitan Police Commissioner. That porous border is a contributor to illegal immigration, drugs trafficking, people trafficking, terrorism and a host of other crimes. That is why we have long called for border police, bringing together Customs, immigration, special branch and ports police, and giving them all wider powers.
	Along with the present and former heads of the Metropolitan police, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, we urged the Government to include those powers in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Why did not the Government do that? Instead, the Home Secretary offers us uniforms for immigration officers: no identified extra powers and no amalgamation of resourcesjust a new uniform. Frankly, this is a ludicrous piece of window dressing. It will not reinforce the immigration system. It will not seal our porous borders and it will certainly not shut down the hideous traffic in human beings that is still going on in the 10th year of the Government's tenure.
	This morning, I listened with interest to the latest Minister for immigration patter out the same old line, used by his many predecessors, that it was all the fault of the Opposition parties. No doubt the Home Secretary will repeat that line today, but let me tell him this: nine years, three big majorities, four Home Secretaries and 54 Acts of Parliament lead to one conclusionthis situation is this Government's responsibility and it is long past time they dealt with it.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming many of the proposals, which he left unspecified, while concentrating on those that he does not seem to welcome so much. May I rectify his view that we are blaming all this on the Opposition? Unusually, we are not. We have tried[ Interruption.] Nor are we blaming it on our predecessors, who made a number of achievements. We are blaming some of it on the Opposition, as I shall point out later, but the main cause is the sheer extent of migration in the world. Every year, 200 million people, which is equivalent to the population of Brazil, migratenot just move but migrateand that has caused successive Secretaries of State huge problems. It overwhelmed the last Conservative Secretary of State, when it took 22 months to process an asylum case. The huge backlog to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) referred was already building up when the Labour Government came in. We have always had to face the migration problem and changes in international circumstances.
	I shall refer to the some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He said that there was nothing new in the statement. Actually, the strategic objectives are new. The greater emphasis on border security and public protection is new. The rigorous risk-based approach to individuals and routes is new. The comprehensive identity management of foreign nationals is new. The extension of biometrics is new. The more visible and resourced uniformed border presence is new. The doubling of enforcement resource and activity is new. The simplification and strengthening of the law that we outlined, including the new powers for deportations and inter-agency arrangements, is new.
	The new accountability arrangements to complement agency status with a single regulator are new. There is a new independent migration advisory committee. The introduction of the new commissioning model is new[ Interruption.] The reason the right hon. Gentleman can see nothing new is that when it is being outlined he is having a conversation with his colleagues. There is a new programme to clear the legacy of unconcluded cases. There is a new drive to break down barriers to removal and deportation. The comprehensive and fairer charging regime is new. I shall not go through the rest as time is limited.
	Incidentally, the IND has been mocked in respect of the move towards agency status, but only by separating it from the core Home Office as an arm's-length agency can we hope to restore faith in the system.
	Removing the agency from the orbit of the Home Office will allow it to be reconstructed along fit-for-purpose lines and run more efficiently.
	Those are not my words; they are from the Conservative party's James report, on which it contested the last election.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks why we do not bring in a card-based system of embarkation controls. I remind him that the system was so inefficient even 14 years ago that the last Conservative Secretary of State got rid of card-based embarkation controls, which is why we have no way of counting out anyone who leaves the country. Incidentally, by 2010, 95 per cent. of routes will be covered by e-borders.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked when the funding increases for enforcement will start. The answer is next yearpretty much as fast as we can start increased funding. It will go up every year until 2010.
	On the Chahal judgment, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to ignore both my oral statement and the one I sent earlier, when I announced that there is a range of ways to proceed. He asked what we intended to do apart from challenging the judgment. I made it absolutely plain that one thing was to limit as far as possible, within the terms of the judgment, the ability to stop deportation of those the Government consider it necessary to deport or remove for reasons of national security. I used those words not 10 minutes before the right hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about the judgment.
	As I said, there is a range of ways to proceed. Another way might be to legislate that the courts must give particular weight to a memorandum of understanding in determining whether an individual faces risk when deported. I made it absolutely clear that we would be prepared to countenance that and to consult on it.
	Border enforcement is not just a matter of bringing in uniforms. We are increasing resources and looking at increasing powers. We are certainly increasing co-ordination. The staff suggested, and said that they would fully support, our giving them a measure of uniform and visible status. They felt that would reinforce their position.
	As for the Conservatives' suggestion for their so-called effective border force, they admitted during the general election campaignto be precise, on the Today programme on 12 April 2005that it meant covering only 35 of the 625 ports: some force and some coverage, if that is all it would amount to.
	I commendas I said, rather than commandthe statement to the House, despite anything that the right hon. Gentleman said in a rather churlish acceptance of major steps forward on our IND improvement. I commend those steps, and I am sure they will render the IND far more effective than was ever the case under Conservative Governments.

John Denham: I thank the Home Secretary for his reference to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the report published two days ago.
	It is clear that what drives illegal migration is the ability to work illegally. Does the Home Secretary accept that employers who exploit illegal labour not only take advantage of those employees but put good employers out of work and cut the wages and conditions of other people in the work force?
	However, IND cannot be left to tackle illegal labour alone. If the Revenue does not collect tax and national insurance from people with fake books, if the Department for Work and Pensions gives out national insurance numbers, and if the Department for Education and Skills gives approval to dodgy colleges that are fronts for illegal working, the proposals will not work.
	I welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on illegal working and its status, but will he tell the House that the whole of government is signed up to making it a priority? That is how he will actually deliver his pledge.

John Reid: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the fact of the matter is that those who work here illegally, where that is done intentionally and with the knowledge of employers, undermine the conditions, terms of service and wages that have been built up over a long time for British workers. Often, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said, those people are living in inhumane and terrible conditions. They are putting at risk not only their own health and safety, but that of other workers and other people in this country. As such, I hope that there will be not only a cross-Government approach to the matter, which, as has been said, is essential, but a cross-party approach. We have often found in the past that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, who like to talk about others talking tough, are the toughest talkers and the softest voters in the House when it comes to tackling some of these abuses. I hope that, having described the inhumane conditions in which some of these people work, when it comes to doing something about it, they will give the Government the backing that they have refused to give in the past.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Home Secretary for notice of the statement, although my gratitude is a little blunted by the awareness that, although I received it 30 minutes in advance, I think some newspapers received significant components of it about three days in advance.
	Many people listening to the statement and some of the previous announcements will understandably ask why many of these measures, some of which are very welcome, were not taken earlier. Why, for instance, has it taken almost 10 years to agree to elementary exit checks, andif my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is correctwhy will there now be a further delay of eight years until 2014 before there is a proper counting-in-and-out system in place? Why has it taken almost a decade to agree to the principle of a properly identified border force, for which we on these Benches have been arguing for a long time? On that note, and in view of the Home Secretary's earlier remarks, will he confirm how many ports of entry will be covered by the new uniformed IND officials and whether they will be integrated more fully with Customs officials so that there is a fully integrated border force?
	Many observers will be understandably sceptical about the practical meaning of some of the pledges made today. What, for instance, does it really mean in practice to
	deal with the legacy of unresolved cases in five years or less?
	Like the Home Secretary himself no doubt, I have spoken to many asylum seekers who find it inexplicable that no action is taken to remove and deport them once their applications or appeals have been refused. They are left in a state of limbo, unable to stay, unable to work and unable to leave. If the Home Secretary wants to deliver a fairer but firmer asylum system, we need to make sure that dealing with asylum applications is not just a paper-shuffling exercise. It should be followed up by real action where that is clearly merited.
	Finally, I would like to add my own questions about the Home Secretary's comments on the Chahal case and the Dutch case that hopes to qualify the Chahal judgment. If the Dutch lose their case, the Government will not be able to ensure that foreign national prisoners automatically face deportation, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. But surely even if the Dutch win the case, the Government will still be unable to deport individuals to countries that are in a state of total chaos or where the individuals will face certain torture, mutilation or death. Will he explain whether he is seriously suggesting that all foreign national offenders will be deported without qualification? Or does he accept that there must and will be exceptions, regardless of what happens in the Dutch case, which he would do well to acknowledge today?

John Reid: To start with the hon. Gentleman's last point, although the Chahal judgment requires consideration of the threat to the safety of the individual to be deported, which I do not think anyone objects tocivilised societies do take that into accountthe problem is that it prohibits taking into account the safety of everyone else in this country if the person remains here. It is that aspect of the judgment that makes it imbalanced. Although it is of course appropriate to consider the safety of anyone who has been deported from this country, it is equally important when considering, say, a suspected terrorist, to take into account the safety of the people of this country if the person stays here. In our view, that imbalance is at the heart of a gross misjudgment, which is why we are challenging it. I think that that answers his question.
	The hon. Gentleman made a comment, as he normally does, about having read elements of the statement in the press. I have to say that I have read all of his response in the press as well, so I am well prepared for that. He demanded to know why we lifted the embarkation controls and so on. There was support from the Liberal Democrats at the time. The reason that support existed, the reason that I have never criticised the lifting of the controlsalthough I felt compelled to point out to Conservative Members that they started this from 1994 onwardsand the reason that I accept that that was not an entirely unreasonable thing to do, relates to the nature of the card indexing system, which was grossly inefficient. We are now in a position where we have a technology that will enable us to take measures, and that is what we will do over the period.
	Of course we hope that there will be an integrated and co-ordinated border force, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, on two subjects, he is very wrong. He implies that we have done nothing up until now, but that is not the case. Under the previous three Labour Home Secretaries, we have doubled the number of removals of those not entitled to be here. We have reduced by 72 per cent. the number of asylum applicants, because we are no longer a magnet. We have reduced the time that it takes to deal with an asylum case from 22 months to eight weeks. We have now got a tipping point where we are deporting more false asylum claimants than arrive here. We have got border controls in northern France and Belgium. We have lorries being scanned. We have closed Sangatte. The channel tunnel is fenced off. Biometric finger scanning for visa applicants and airline liaison has been brought in. There are many other measures. The hon. Gentleman ought to commend us for being far more self-critical and constructive in renewing and building on the improvements that we have already made than either of the Opposition parties appear capable of being.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will know that there is a great deal of business to be completed today, in which a large number of hon. Members are hoping to take part. For the remainder of the statement, may I appeal for brief questions and perhaps brief answers from the Secretary of State?

Frank Field: Does the Home Secretary accept that this country is facing a level of legal immigration unknown in its entire history? Does he accept that, as we get the figures together for 2004, we can see that the level of legal immigration is approaching 1 millionhalf of that coming from the accession countries? Does he also accept that part of the problem was that only three of the established members of the European Union agreed that they should give free access to their labour markets? Can he

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is getting us off to a bad start. I have counted three questions. I think that that is sufficient.

John Reid: My right hon. Friend is right to say that we face a challenge of hitherto unimaginable proportions due to the level of international migration. I think that the implication of his questions is that we should accept that, if migration is to be managed to the benefit of this country, we ought to have the information with which to manage it, the powers and practical measures with which to control it, and independent advice on which to base those judgments. I agree with all three of those things and I think that he will find that they are in my statement.

George Young: The Home Secretary's statement has considerable resource implications for the immigration and nationality directorate. Has the Chancellor recently made additional resources available to him for those additional activities, or will the Home Secretary have to fund them from his existing departmental baseline?

John Reid: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as ever, the Chancellor has been my flexible friend as I have approached the matter. A combination of the reprioritisation of my budget, the extension of charging to foreign nationalsnot people in this countryand an efficiency drive in a number of areas has resulted in a package with which the Chancellor and I are equally satisfied.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend will be aware that for a long time I have been one of the sternest critics of the extremists whom he wishes to remove from the country, but as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw his attention to the concerns that my Committee expressed about the intervention in the Ramzi case to overturn the Chahal judgment. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our absolute obligations under the UN convention against torture, and under customary international law, will create problems for the removal of the people concerned? I put it this way: would he be prepared to send somebody back to face torture?

John Reid: I do not think that anyone is asking hon. Members to accept that premise. It is wildly wrong to suggestif indeed my hon. Friend is suggesting itthat opposition to the Chahal judgment means support either for complicity or for sending people to be tortured; that is an outrageous suggestion. I have already explained to the House the problem with the Chahal judgment, which is that it appears on the face of it to deny us the ability to arrive at a balance between the protection and safety of one individual and the protection and safety of 60 million individualsthat is, everyone in this country. It is that imbalance that we, along with others in Europe, are attempting to challenge. We have said that we will consider the extent to which, commensurate with judgments made on any cases, we can have legislative recourse so that that balance can at least be approximated, even if it is not fully achieved. Surely that lack of balance between the rights and protections of one individual, and the rights and protections of groups of individuals, is at the heart of what we ought to do. Everybody has human rights, the most basic of which is the right to lifeand if that applies to one individual, it applies to the rest of the people in the United Kingdom.

Roger Gale: Those of us who represent Kent coastal constituencies regard ourselves as being on the front line of our porous borders. The Home Secretary needs to convince not just the people of Kent, but people working in the service that he will create something rather more substantial than a team of dockyard traffic wardens. The British Transport police have the ability to co-ordinate the effortsomeone has to co-ordinate itbut will they be allowed to do it? Has he agreed that with the Secretary of State for Transport, and if the BTP will not co-ordinate the effort, who will?

John Reid: I regret the terminology that the hon. Gentleman chose to use in referring to those who are trying to carry out a difficult task. I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that what he said was a bit unfair on the people trying to do that job. In answer to his second question, when I make a statement in the House on behalf of the Government, it is on behalf of the whole Government.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Secretary of State is still ambiguous about what the uniformed force will do. Unless and until there is a dedicated ports police for our sea ports, we will have porous borders, and no measures taken by him or his successors will be taken seriously, whether in the war against terrorism, the illegal trafficking of people, or combating the mafia-style crimes committed by people who go through our sea ports. What logic is there in having police in our airports, but not our sea ports? Get real on this!

John Reid: I know that my hon. Friend has been a forceful advocate on the subject for some time. The truth of the matter is that our operations are intelligence-led. I do not think that anyone in the House is suggesting that we fund a full force that is static and resident at 625 ports.

Andrew MacKinlay: A mobile force.

John Reid: An intelligence-led, mobile force that is better resourced and co-ordinated is precisely what we are trying to achieve. Even if my statement does not fully delight my hon. FriendI am afraid that, in nine years of trying, I have almost never delighted him on anythingI hope that it is a move in that direction.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the criminal liability that will be attached to employers who employ illegal immigrants. He is wholly right to say that the criminal sanctions should apply only to employers who act knowinglythat is, it should not be an absolute offence. May I suggest that the same rules be applied to the public sector as to the private sector, so that Ministers and permanent secretaries will be exposed to the same liabilities as members of a private-sector board?

John Reid: That is a perfectly reasonable point, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting that we are trying to distinguish between those who commit an offence in error, and others. I would go slightly further and say that, if we ask others to do something, it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that our enforcement agencies are effective. If we have an ineffective enforcement agency, we can hardly ask those in the private sector to act in a fashion that we do not.

Martin Linton: I welcome the doubling of the enforcement budget and the target of dealing with 90 per cent. of asylum cases within six months. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposal will cover not only the initial decision and the appeal, but, if relevant, removal? Nothing is more unsettling, both for the public and asylum seekers, than not knowing when, or indeed whether, they will be removed.

John Reid: Absolutely, and that contributes to a double inefficiency, because the longer a family is in the country, the more legitimacy it has in claiming the protection of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and other legislation that protects family life. If a family has been here for two, three, five or six months, that is one thing, but if it has been here for five years as a result of our lack of administrative ability to deal with the case, it makes it harder to remove them. I hope that we will deal with that.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) mentioned the figure of 450,000, but that is the number of electronic and paper records, not, as he suggested, the number of people. Nevertheless, we will try to prioritise the way in which we deal with them. I am happy to tell the House that I am prepared to bring in outside help to deal with that backlog, and I hope that we can do that within five years. We will start by eliminating duplication and errors, and then start on cases that may present a risk to the public. Of course, in many of the cases people may have been granted leave to remain, but we have not been able to contact the relevant people to tell them that. Some will have already left, and many may be members of the eight applicant members of the European Union, and so are now here legitimately. The idea that we have to go through an extraordinarily high number of peoplesome 100,000 a yearwho have been refused leave to remain is another myth that has been encouraged by Conservative Members and published by some of the more right-wing papers.

Ian Paisley: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has to learn in a very hard school that Northern Ireland is not such a bad place. He has come home to home troubles, and home troubles are harder to serve and sell. I want to ask him a plain question: is he satisfied that he has the accurate number for cases of asylum seekers? If he has the right number, how long will it take him to settle those cases, rather than address new applications? Lastly, how will he implement the suggestion in his statement that he will try to stop people leaving their country to get to this United Kingdom?

John Reid: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I believe that we have an accurate number of case files at between 400,000 and 450,000. Many of those will be duplicates and therefore those figures do not represent people. The only estimate we have of the number of people came from the National Audit Office last yearthe only estimate that is in the public domain from any independent organisation. That is 283,000, plus dependants, plus those who were in the UK before 1994. I do not make estimates because, like the last Conservative Home Secretary, I am not prepared to put before the House estimates on whose accuracy I cannot rely. However, the figure that I mentioned from the NAO is in the public domain. I have put in the public domain the number of case files that we have, but some of them may be duplicates and many may be errors. We will deal with that over the next few years. With regard to people leaving the country, we do not intend to try to stop anyone leaving, but we intend to reintroduce the means of counting them as they leave the country. Finally, I look back with great affection to the days when the right hon. Gentleman and I could stroll in the sunshine through Ballymena. I can tell him that the delights there are surpassed only by the delights of the Home Office.

Gwyn Prosser: I very much welcome the plans to reform the immigration and nationality directorate, particularly the commitment to crack down on the most harmful people for removal first. However, what does my right hon. Friend intend to do about the present target structure, which many of us believe was the root cause of the law-abiding soft targets being removed from the country and convicts being allowed to disappear into society?

John Reid: One of the things that we hope will be achieved by giving the IND a degree of autonomyfirst in shadow form from next April, and hopefully, if things go well, in agency status from the following Aprilwill be a degree of permission to the management to sustain the objectives without the constant interference of people like me in setting the objectives. There will still be objectives and targets, but in the face of hugely changed circumstances over the past 10 years we have done immensely well to achieve the benefits that I mentioned earlier and the reduction in the time that it takes to process claims, the reduction in asylum numbers, the closure of some of the worst areas of illegal immigration and so on. It is time to step back a little and say, Okay, we have managed to hold the fort and to make major advances, but we need to move from improvement to transformation. Part of that transformation entails giving the management more control in managing the position and sustaining our long-term objectives.

Julie Kirkbride: The Home Secretary said that he wanted to link criminality more clearly to deportation. Can he tell us, therefore, what level of offence would trigger a deportation order?

John Reid: We have said that where people have been given a custodial sentence over a given time, which we have not specifiedat present it is one year for non-European economic area nationals and two years for EEA nationalsthere should be a presumption of deportation. There will be cases where, in any civilised society, we will decide that we ought not to implement that because of certain circumstances, but when someone comes to this country, takes this country's benefits and misuses the country's hospitality to the extent that they get a prison sentence, the presumption should be that they go back to the country from which they came.

Keith Vaz: In respect of the new shadow agency that the Home Secretary is creating, will he undertake to consult Parliament if it is to have a regional structure? Will he also undertake to ensure that should the regulator produce a report that is critical of the agency or of immigration policy, the Government will accept it?

John Reid: I can certainly give my right hon. Friend a guarantee on the first point. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality to consult MPs and others about regional cities. I am not sure that I entirely understood the second point that my right hon. Friend was making. I may have misheard it. I envisage the migration advisory committee as an advisory body particularly on the skills that are necessary for the economythere is a skills advisory body at present. We will consult on regulation, and perhaps during that consultation he can make the points that he just made.

Jacqui Lait: I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that many illegal asylum seekers are in the country because of initial poor decision making. What assurances can he give us that in future the staff will be given the tools for more robust decision making?

John Reid: We will try to make sure that that is the case. Earlier, I mentioned resources and enforcement. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that in my statement I said that, where necessary, we would also amend the regulations, the laws and the guidance to those working on cases to enable them to do their job more effectively and more speedily. Although the ills of the world and the problems that we face on immigration are often blamed on the Human Rights Act 1998, if we studied paragraph 364 of the immigration rules 1994, we would find that the burden of scrutiny placed on caseworkers is about three times as wide as it would need to be under the Human Rights Act. Those rules were passed under the last Conservative Government in 1994.

David Marshall: My right hon. Friend is aware that many people came legally to the UK on visitors visas, but failed to return home when those visas expired and became illegal overstayers, and that that happened under the previous Conservative Government as well as under the present Government, as many overstayers have been in the UK for more than 10 years. As there is no record of overstayers leaving the UK, how will the plan deal with such cases?

John Reid: We hope that that will be done both by increased enforcement capacity, capability, technology and resources, and also to some extent by the gradual introduction of embarkation controls, which will be linked to biometricsfingerprinting or on the iris. We trust that a combination of all those will achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identifies. In addition, we will consider legislation.

Simon Hughes: Does the Home Secretary accept that from the perspective of those of us who have huge daily contact with the IND, the three things that would make the biggest difference are speedy and effective co-ordination between the Home Office and the appeals services, management of the Home Office so that it did not so often lose files, passports and papers, and control of those people who purport to give advice, sometimes lawyers and sometimes others, who give bad advice, charge large sums of money and do a disservice to the individuals whom they purport to serve as well as to the country in which they are working?

John Reid: Yes, I think so, although our shortcomings sometimes assist such people to make money, sometimes under false pretences. The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority on these matters, as he is probablydepending on one's point of viewthe biggest correspondent or the biggest burden on the immigration and nationality directorate, but he is right to talk about the basics, the losing of files and so on. There is no doubt about that. In the document we made a very simple point, at which people may sneer: that we want to create excellence in the basicsthat is, in the maintenance of files, systems, information and so onbecause that is what gives rise to huge frustration, additional work, with MPs and others writing after months and years of delays, and then grounds for remaining in the country, even when the initial entry was illegitimate, because people have been here so long that to ask them to move would be to interrupt unduly the family life that had been established. The hon. Gentleman is right on all these points.

Kate Hoey: Will the Home Secretary confirm that when the shadow agency is created it will make absolutely no difference in terms of the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament, particularly those of us who have to represent the cases of many asylum seekers and immigrants in Parliament?

John Reid: That is certainly the case with regard to the shadow form of the agency, but I hope that we can have genuine and mature discussions with Members of Parliament about the degree of accountability and hon. Members' level of intervention in every decision. I fully accept that we should retain that overall strategic direction, that there should be overall accountability to Parliament and that Members of Parliament must always be given the right in the last instance, in extremis or in cases of miscarriages of justice, to intervene, and I think that that is what my hon. Friend is referring to. However, I know that she will accept that sometimes the sheer level of intervention, where people may not always be as discriminating as she is about which cases to raise, and the sheer amount of work that is needed to reopen a case every time a Member of Parliament writes, is something that we should consider in fairness to the staff who have to deal with these matters.

Andrew MacKinlay: I disagree with that. That is rubbish.

John Reid: I do not think that anyone would disagree with looking at that, but that is certainly part of the burden of consultation that we hope would be carried out.

James Clappison: The 283,000 estimate to which the Home Secretary referred relates to asylum seekers whose claims have ultimately failed. Does the time scale of five years apply to those individuals, and what does resolve mean in their case? Does it mean that they will be removed from the country, or what else does it mean?

John Reid: It obviously means that in the last instance, having got rid of duplicates and errors, and those who have died or left, as far as can be ascertained, and having moved out of consideration those who are now here legitimately because they are from EU countries, although they may not have been in the first instance, we will come down to those who have been granted leave to remain and those for whom the final decision has been deportation. We will do everything possible to identify and to remove those people. It means exactly what it says. Does it mean that none of those people will face deportation to a country where it is illegal to deport them, or that they will not face the usual obstacles that we would face with anyone else? No, it does not mean that. We are living in the real world. But it does mean that each and every one of these cases will be attended to within a five-year period, rather than just sitting there, unattended, as has been the case up to now.

Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the need to crack down on illegal working. Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the Chair of the Select Committee, about the need for all parts of government to work together on this matter, will the Home Secretary consider establishing one clear point of contact to which anyone with suspicions about illegal working can report them in the reasonable expectation that they will be properly looked into and dealt with by all parts of government working together?

John Reid: The new director of enforcement whom I announced earlier today is already engaged on that matter, and I think that he has already started to make arrangements with Crimestoppers in that regard.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Home Secretary for giving notice of the statement and I welcome many of the initiatives, particularly the action on rogue employers. With regard to the consultation on the creation of a migration advisory committee, no doubt to inform the creation of the shortage occupation lists, the Home Secretary will know that the Government have rejected devolution of the separate Scottish occupation list, but will he consider seriously the creation of a Scottish migration advisory committee to inform the creation of the separate Scottish occupation list?

John Reid: We always keep in contact with our colleagues in the Scottish Executive on these matters. For instance, I know that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), will visit Scotland in September. I visit regularly and we have discussions not only with the Minister for Justice there, Cathy Jamieson, but also the First Minister, Jack McConnell, and they have been forceful in trying to ensure that the Scottish dimension enters all of our considerations, and I am sure that that will continue.

Neil Gerrard: To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the implications of a move to agency status, I have no problem in accepting that I have the right to represent my constituents, and I will do that in whatever way I want, but at the end of the day who will make the decisions? When one looks at other agencies, one realises that a possible implication is that in future Ministers will not get involved in individual decisions and a Member will not be able to take up a case with the Minister. Will that happen, or, at the very least, if anything like that is proposed, will that be discussed thoroughly with hon. Members before it does happen?

John Reid: I do not know whether I will disappoint my hon. Friend, but by and large at the moment we do not take those decisions. We reserve the right to intervene, and I do not envisage that we would lose that right, but at the moment we try to use that sparingly, not least because it is one thinga difficult thingto have an indiscriminate number of letters sent in about cases [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) keeps intervening from a sedentary position and referring to cases that have been delayed or files that have been lost. I have already been absolutely clear on that. It is a sine qua non for looking at the relationship and the practical implications of intervention that we remedy the very defects that are causing hon. Members to intervene on so many occasions, causing legal difficulties in removing people because of the inordinate and unjustifiable delays. I fully accept that, and part of the deal has to be that there is a better performance and a speedier turnaround, and that at the end of the day Members and Ministers reserve the right to intervene and to make representations. All I am saying is that as we improve the system, I hope that we will thereby reduce the scale of intervention by Members and Ministers, because the inadequacies, unjustifiable delays, lost cases and miscarriages of justice on these matters will be diminished.

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary accept that perhaps he is creating some confusion between what he is saying and what the Lord Chancellor was saying on the Today programme today? In particular, will he accept that he is ducking the issue by transferring the interpretation of the existing legislation to the courts, and that the real legislation should be made in this House in terms that enable people to have a fair trial or fair treatment, and that means that we have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and guarantee that there is no move to majority voting in the Council of Ministers regarding immigration questions under the European treaties? Does the Home Secretary accept that?

John Reid: I am deeply sad to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he is not able to lay the ills at the feet of the Human Rights Act. The Chahal judgment was in 1996. It was before the Human Rights Act. Indeed, it was before the Labour Government. That judgment was made under a Conservative Government. The other impediment to a speedy resolution of many of these cases also predates the 1997 Labour election victory, and that is, as I said earlier, paragraph 364 or the immigration rules of 1994. If the hon. Gentleman wants to address both those matters, he should join us, but in doing so he would not destroy the Human Rights Act, because both matters pre-date that.

Tom Harris: Does my right hon. Friend envisage a change in the law in order to deal with asylum seekers who successfully claim refugee status, but who immediately apply for travel documents in order to return home to pay a visit to the country from which they claim to have fled because they have been persecuted, or do the Government already have the means to deal with that abuse?

John Reid: The answer is that I do not know. My hon. Friend has started to engage with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality on the matter, which will be looked into. We have made it plain that if we need to amend the law or the regulations in order to achieve a fair and effective immigration system, which is what people want, we will do so. In today's world, where 200 million people migrate every year, a managed migration system is important, and if we have to change the law and regulations to achieve that, we will do so.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the last three sitting days before the 76-day summer recess, there have been 98 written ministerial statements. It is impossible for hon. Members to scrutinise the Government given the deluge of statements, and it is also clear that the vast majority of the statements could and should have been made earlier. Can you help to rectify what appears to be a gross abuse of power by the Executive?

Mr. Speaker: The advice that I received when I first entered the House was that I should specialise, and the hon. Gentleman should read the statements on the subjects in which he is specialising. It has taken me a long time to get Ministers to be accountable to this House, and written statements are a form of accountability, which I welcome. I would rather have written statements than nothing at all.

Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and I have made every effort to reduce the number of written ministerial statements tabled on the last day of the Session. In the past, about 60 written ministerial statements were tabled on the last day of the Session, compared with 14 today. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about the large number of written ministerial statements that were tabled earlier, because we have done what we said we would do to ensure that hon. Members are not ambushed on the last day. On this occasion, it should be bouquets rather than brickbats from the hon. Gentleman.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, hon. Members jealously guard their right to be informed when other hon. Members visit their constituencies. On Friday, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, visited my constituency. I had discovered that he was coming before his visit, so I approached him, welcomed him to my constituency and told him that I could not be present at the functionI do not mind other hon. Members visiting my constituency, even if they do not tell me. However, he addressed a gathering of members of the British Hindu community in what he thought was flawless Gujarati. There was bewilderment, because the majority in the audience thought that he was talking in a cross between Chinese and Welsh. Is it possible for guidance to be given to hon. Members on the courtesy of writing to let other hon. Members know when they are visiting their constituencies and on the need to have a proper tutor if they choose to speak another language?

Mr. Speaker: I will not head into that area.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for momentarily delaying the well-deserved tribute to the Clerk of the House. May I seek your assistance in protecting the rights of Back Benchers and preserving the courtesies and customs of the House in connection with written answers? Following a well-publicised policy change by the Government arising from an article in the  News of the World, I tabled a question for answer on 26 June. On that day, the Home Secretary said that he would reply as soon as possible. Nearly one month later, I tabled a further question asking when he might be interested in telling me when he met the  News of the World to discuss the matter. Yesterday, I received another written answer from the Home Secretary, which stated that he would reply as soon as possible. The Home Secretary must know whether he met the  News of the World. When and how will we get the traditional answers to written questions out of Ministers in a timely fashion?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me know that he was going to raise that point of order. It is important that Ministers answer questions in time, and I know that the Leader of the House shares that view. I hope that the current delays can be dealt with quickly, because parliamentary questions are an essential part of the accountability of Ministers to this House.

Jim Devine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a relative new boy, and I am inexperienced in the procedure of the House, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Last week at Deputy Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the constituency party of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) had received funding from a company that wanted to build a casino. The hon. Gentleman replied that that was a lie and raised a point of order. However, I have checked his entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which includes a company called Aston Wood Properties. In August 2003, the local newspaper stated that Aston Wood Properties hoped to build a casino, along with a hotel and nightclub, on the site of the old Keddies store in the High street, which suggests that the Deputy Prime Minister was correct. How can we rectify the situation?

Mr. Speaker: The House was very noisy at that Deputy Prime Minister's questionsI remember the hon. Gentleman being in the Chamber. It is not helpful to the proceedings of this House when allegations go from one side of the House to the other. If any hon. Member has any complaint about the behaviour of another hon. Member, there is a procedure, which I will not go into at the momentI am not encouraging anyone to use the procedure. If the word liar was shouted, it would have been helpful if there had been less noise in the Chamber, because those hon. Members who know me well know that I would not have tolerated such language and would have called for an immediate withdrawal. However, I cannot do that if there is so much noise that I cannot hear what has been said. I would appreciate it if hon. Members listened rather than throwing in their tuppence-worth and shouting across the Chamber.

Shailesh Vara: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), Mr. Speaker. May I point out for the record that I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to the function mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman? As my right hon. Friend's tutor in Gujarati, and as a fluent Gujarati speaker, I advise the right hon. Member for Leicester, East to turn to page 7 of the  Leicester Mercury, where the quality of Gujarati spoken by my right hon. Friend is highly praised.

Mr. Speaker: I have enough to worry about in dealing with the  Springburn Herald, so I will not get involved.

James Duddridge: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), Mr. Speaker. May I apologise unreservedly for any intemperate or inappropriate language? I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue with me in advance, which gave me the opportunity to give him a statement from my local association outlining where the Deputy Prime Minister got his facts wrong. Would it be helpful if I were to write to you enclosing a copy of that statement to allow hon. Members to see where the point of confusion arose?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has apologised, which is good enough for me. We should put an end to the matter and leave it at that. Sometimes, particularly at Deputy Prime Minister's questions, things get very heated, so we will move on and have a nice recess.

Passenger Transport Authorities (Regulation)

Nick Brown: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable passenger transport authorities in certain metropolitan districts in England to regulate passenger transport operations; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is intended to strengthen passenger transport authoritiesPTAsand passenger transport executivesPTEsin metropolitan England outside London. The reason for doing that is to encourage greater use of public transport and to enable PTAs and PTEs to be more innovative with public transport schemes in their own areas. Essentially, my proposal is to gain for the rest of metropolitan England what London already has.
	My Bill has three elements: a strengthened regulatory role for PTAs and PTEs; the explicit ability to enter into partnership agreements with neighbouring areas, most obviously covering travel-to-work areas that cross county boundaries; and the ability of those strengthened PTAs to receive grant aid directly from central Government. In Tyne and Wear, that would have the great advantage of eliminating the funding shortfall for the pensioners concessionary bus travel scheme.
	My Bill is unashamedly pro-public transport. It favours the citizen and the broader public interest over narrower commercial interests. All the traditional arguments in favour of public transport still stand: the impact of public transport on congestion, public transport as a liberating instrument of social inclusion, and public transport as a support for the labour market and economic activity more generally. Those arguments are well known and understood and are in themselves pretty persuasive, but it is surely the case for public transport as energy-efficient and environmentally friendly that should compel us to renew our efforts in this area. The strengthened PTAs proposed in my Bill would have control over the strategic highway network in their area. They would be able to control bus lanes and bus priority carriageways and assert the routes used for bus travel, so that the public interest could be asserted over the bus operator's commercial interest.
	Let me give an example of why this is necessary. The No. 22 bus operated by Stagecoach in my constituency is supposed to go down Shields road. It always used to go down Shields road, local people want it to go down Shields road, and the bus stops are on Shields road. However, the bus is now diverted into a residential areaValentia avenue and Iolanthe crescent. Some 800 local residents have signed a petition requesting it to be returned to its former route. I have tried to get the bus route put back to how it was, as have the PTA, the local council, and local residents in direct meetings with the operator, but the answer remains no. That is not for any public service reason but for the operating convenience of the bus company, which has rerouted the bus past its depot so that it can change drivers. And people complain about provider capture in public services!
	The operator behaves in that way because there is no-one to insist that it should not. My Bill would remedy that. Powerful stand-alone transport authorities would be able to invest in the public transport network and their own capital programmes. Of course they would have to be audited and held to account for the money that they were spending, but at least they would be able to get on with it.
	Bus deregulation has not led to a growth in bus travel outside London. Since deregulation, fares have increased by 86 per cent. in PTA areas and bus use has halved. Bus use in Tyne and Wear has declined by 48 per cent. in the past 20 years. Bus operators' response to declining use is to cut services, reduce costs, raise fares and seek public subsidies. As the bus service weakens, people look for alternativesmost obviously, the private motor car. Nor has deregulation brought new, exciting, innovative bus operators into the market. Market entry costs are high, and existing operators are pretty well placed to see off any new competition. In London, buses are carrying more passengers than at any time since the 1960s, whereas in the rest of metropolitan England the movement is in the opposite direction. That is neither sustainable nor desirable. As a remedy, I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. David Clelland, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. David Anderson, Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Clive Betts, Graham Stringer and Mr. Stephen Byers.

Passenger Transport Authorities (Regulation)

Mr. Nicholas Brown accordingly presented a Bill to enable passenger transport authorities in certain metropolitan districts in England to regulate passenger transport operations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 221].

Sir Roger Sands KCB

Jack Straw: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and all the other leaders of political parties here represented, I beg to move,
	That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Roger Sands KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, the House's gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedures of the House, for his leadership and professionalism in the discharge of his duties as chief executive of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
	I have no doubt that the rest of the House will wish to join party leaders and me in supporting this motion to pay tribute to Sir Roger Sands, who on 30 September will retire as Clerk of the House. That date will mark 41 years of service, during which time he has not only watched the House change but played a vital role in shaping those changes and in ensuring its continued relevance and vitality. Over the course of his career, which began in the early days of Harold Wilson's Government in 1965, Sir Roger has occupied almost all of the senior positions in the Clerk's Department, including Clerk of the Overseas Office, Principal Clerk of Select Committees and Registrar of Members' Interests, Clerk of Public Bills, Clerk of Legislation and Clerk Assistant, before becoming Clerk of the House in January 2003.
	Yet according to more than one of his colleagues, despite playing such a number of prominent roles he has left few personal embarrassing personal anecdotes behind him; evidently he was too shrewd and reliable for that. However, he did manage to get described in one departmental missive as being
	like a lethal hunter-killer submarine
	a clear warning that his manner belied a forensic mind and a tenacious ability to stick to an argument. As I am sure all colleagues who have encountered Sir Roger will readily acknowledge, he has been unfailingly courteous in all his dealings. As one of his colleagues in the Clerk's Department remarked, His capacity to soak up problems without over-reacting to them never ceased to amaze. The worst reaction I ever saw was when he professed, after being badly let down, to be 'Very cross'.
	Let me turn to the aspect of the motion that refers to the wise contribution that Sir Roger has made in developing the procedures of the House, and particularly in discharging his duties as Chief Executive. The important experience that he gained during the 1980s as Secretary of the House of Commons Commission meant that he developed acute antennae for Members' concerns. He was therefore well placed, when becoming Chief Executive as well as Clerk of the House, to guide the Board of Management through a period of significant change. As a result, he leaves the House in a much better position to address the further challenges that it continues to face.
	It should be emphasised, however, that long before he got the senior job, Sir Roger had already made a difference to the administration of the House. In the mid-1990s he succeeded in negotiating new contracts for the House's printing and publishing needs. They managed to provide considerable cost savings without sacrificing quality.
	More generally, Sir Roger has played a critical role in helping the House to remain at the centre of public and political life. As he noted in his letter of retirement:
	The House of Commons is a much-criticised institution; and its own Members are often as critical an anyone. But whatever its perceived failings, the House remains at the centre of political and public life and is the envy of most other countries in the world.
	Those who dispute that and dismiss Parliament as an irrelevance display their ignorance of this place. It is all too easy to dismiss this magnificent gothic structure on the bank of the Thames and mistake Parliament for a monument, fixed and unchanged for countless years.
	Parliament is not a monument. It has the most extraordinary history but it is a living institution, and as such, must constantly be refreshed and renewed. That is what Sir Roger Sands has helped to achieve. However, he would be the first to acknowledgeas indeed he hasthe critical support that he received from all the staff of the House in doing his duties as Clerk. In paying tribute to Sir Roger, we pay tribute to all the staff in post and the many others who have left in recent years from all departments and all levels in the House, often after many years' service. They may rarely be seen or noticed by those outside these buildings, but as hon. Members of all parties know, the House of Commons and Parliament could not function without the superb officials who serve it and the broad spectrum of talent that they possess.
	As the England football team demonstrated rather vividly earlier this month, a talented group of individuals does not alone guarantee an effective team. Leadership is all important. Roger Sands provided that and we are deeply grateful to him for doing so. We will miss him greatly. We thank him warmly and wish him and his wife, Jennifer, well for the future.

Theresa May: It is with great pleasure that I support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members to mark the retirement of Sir Roger Sands.
	Sir Roger has given years of distinguished service to the House and hon. Members, and we shall be sorry to see him go. In his 41 years here, he has probably done nearly every job in the Clerk's repertoire. He served as secretary to the Chairman of Ways and Means, looking after the Deputy SpeakersI suspect that he has some good stories to tell. Despite being, as you mentioned at his retirement party yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a very English Englishman, he served for four years as a respected Clerk to the Scottish Affairs Committee. I am sure that he enjoyed his visits to the highlands and islands and Prestwick, although I suspect that the work on dampness in Scottish housing may have been slightly less fun.
	Sir Roger was for several years Secretary to the House of Commons Commission and Clerk to the Services Committee. Dare I say it, but 20 years on, he has been dealing with some of the same issues, including the rules on the use of prepaid envelopes. He many not be sorry to see the back of that.
	For four years Sir Roger was Clerk of the Overseas Office. I am sure that that enabled him to build up a network of friends and contacts, which doubtless stood him in good stead when trying to find out what Parliaments around the world, especially in the Commonwealth, were up to when we wanted to draw on their experience.
	However, I suspect that he might have most enjoyed his two stints in the Public Bill Office, including seven years in charge, dealing with the intricacies of the legislative process. That is where many hon. Members will have learned to value his advice and assistance.
	Since 1 January 2003, Sir Roger has been Clerk of the House and Chief Executive. He was not the first Clerk to have the title of Chief Executive, but he was the first for whom it was part of the job description from the outset. I suspect that it has played a greater role in his job than it did in the past. I want briefly to reflect on that aspect of his contribution to the House.
	Although most hon. Members will remember his contribution in advising on the business of the House in every sense, for the staff of the House his contribution as Chief Executive will have had most impact. It is too easy for Members to forget the work that needs to go on behind the scenes to ensure that this place functions as smoothly as they expect. In that capacity, Sir Roger has had to get to grips with issues such as best practice on tender procedures, diversity strategy and value for money audit reports that many previous Clerks would have felt far removed from the role of the Clerk to the House of Commons.
	As we move into a world of more accountability and a culture of compliance, the role has brought with it increased responsibilities and duties. Sir Roger has chaired the Board of Management not only with skill but with sensitivity and courtesy, and I am sure that his quiet but incisive style and absolute integrity have served the House, its Members and staff well.
	I am reliably informed that there is a link between Sir Roger and Tiger Woods, in that he is an occasional golferSir Roger, I mean. I have been given a description of his golfing technique, which mirrors his approach to his work here. I am told that he is accurate, steady and unflappable on the links, with a deceptively slow backswing, which accelerates the club towards the middle of the ball and generally strikes it further and straighter than might at first sight seem likely.
	Just as on the golf course, so in Sir Roger's work, where he has also been accurate, steady and unflappable, and where his quiet approach has masked an ability to strike at the heart of an issue and achieve more than many, on occasions, thought possible.
	I join the Leader of the House in thanking all who have served the House. Today in particular, we wish Sir Roger and his family well. We thank him for all he has given this House and its Members in the past 41 years, and wish him a happy retirement.

Alan Williams: What do I need to say about such a parliamentary colleague? That, of course, is what Sir Roger Sands is, although he is not a Member of Parliament. He has been here for only one year less than mehe gets the gold watch and I get to be Father of the House. I leave it to hon. Members to decide who got the better deal.
	What can I say about someone who is retiring at the peak of his career? Sir Roger is universally recognised by his colleagues as being the right man for the job. They display no envy or criticism of the fact that he had the job, they simply express admiration for the way in which he has carried it out. That respect is due to an unusual combination of qualities: his great ability and his even greater modesty. It is typical of Sir Roger that he was sitting in the Chamber as we started the business, but now he has disappeared. I suspect that he would have sunk below the Table had he been here to listen to all the compliments that he would have had to endure. He is deceptively unassuming.
	As has been said, Sir Roger is only the second Clerk of the House to be Chief Executive. That is an enhanced role; it is Clerk of the House plus. The House has taken on a new corporate structure, and he and the Board of Management have accepted responsibilities that the House of Commons Commission previously exercised. As Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I can say that Sir Roger has presided over the greatest enhancement for a quarter of a century in the quality and number of resources available to back up Select Committees. He has undertaken both functions with his colleagues with great ability. There has been a smooth transition to an improved system in both cases.
	I was a little surprisedalthough I should have known thisto discover that Sir Roger is also the accounting officer. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, yet I was unaware of that. I hope that he will not feel deprived by the knowledge that in his years as an accounting officer, we never felt that we had to call him before the Public Accounts Committee. Many of his accounting officer colleagues in Whitehall wish that they had shared that deprivation.
	On behalf of Back-Bench colleagues who are unable to be here today, myself and all other members of the Liaison Committee, I thank Sir Roger and congratulate him on 40 years of outstanding service to the House. I wish him and his wife a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.

David Heath: Liberal Democrat Members associate ourselves with and fully support the motion that the Leader of the House presented. The comments that have already been made exemplify the character and quality that Sir Roger has brought to his position over the past few years and throughout his career as a servant of the House. That is what we give him credit for today.
	Unlike the Father of the House, I was not around the House in 1965. In fact, very few of the present Members were. It was a very different House in those days. Sir Harry Hylton-Foster was in your Chair, Mr. Speaker, Harold Wilson spoke as Prime Minister at the Government Dispatch Box, and Edward Heath spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It might be of interest to the House to learn that, in 1965, it was not felt necessary to adjourn for the summer recess until 5 August. And to add a little liveliness to the proceedings on the last day, instead of a debate on the adjournment of the House there was a motion of no confidence in the Government to send Members on their way with a smile. Those were the days!
	It is fair to say that Sir Roger, in his role of Clerk of the House and Chief Executive, has received the credit not only of Members of the House but of all the staff who have worked with him. His is a big job nowadays; it is by no means a sinecure. The Leader of the House was entirely right, in paying tribute to Sir Roger, to pay tribute to all the staff of the House who give us such excellent service. As we are talking about the Clerk of the House today, I shall mention the Clerks Department specifically in that regard. We might sometimes have reason to argue with their use of English when it is different from our own, and there are occasions on which we find it difficult to accept their advice. However, that advice is always given with courtesy and accuracy, and with the interests of the House in mind. We give them great credit for that, because without it, the House could not operate as an effective legislature.
	There is life after the House of Commons for former Clerks of the House. I have the great pleasure of having Sir Donald Limon as one of my constituents. He lives in the village of Kingsdon, and I meet him at least twice a year when Witham Friary cricket club plays Kingsdon cricket club on one of the great occasions of the sporting calendar. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of going to an Edwardian tea party to mark the centenary of the railway coming to Somerton. Sir Donald Limon was not only singing in the choir; he was a soloist. I note that one of Sir Roger's recreations is listening to music. Perhaps there is a possibility of a former Clerks' society being formed, in which Sir Donald could sing and Sir Roger could listen. I applaud Sir Roger, and I wish him and Lady Sands every health and happiness in a long retirement.

Jim Dowd: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today. It is somewhat unusual for such a lowly and humble example of parliamentary life as a mere Government Back Bencher to take part in occasions such as these, but I hope to explain why I am doing so.
	I first came across Sir Rogeras he then was notin my role as an Opposition Whip in the early 1990s. It was only a few years later, when I had been transmogrified into a Government Whip, that I was at a meeting with Sir Roger and some of his Clerk colleagues. As I went in to the room, I heard Roger say, Oh, it's my MP! I looked round the room to see to whom the remark was being addressed, and realised that it was me. It transpired that he lived not only in my constituency but in the same part of it as I did. [Hon. Members:  Did he vote for you?] Well, that is the next point that I want to make.
	I try to be a conscientious, hard-working and informed Member of the House, so, on my return to my office, I immediately went to our canvassing records. I looked at the appropriate addresswhich I shall not divulgeand, sure enough, there were Roger and Jennifer Sands. Next to the voting intention, it said in bold capitals: WON'T SAY, so he was clearly the soul of discretion

David Winnick: That is a don't know.

Jim Dowd: Well, they can sometimes count as the same thing.
	On his deserved promotion to Clerk of the House, Roger had to leave the leafy green suburbs of Lewisham, West and take up residence in the precincts of the Palace. Hon. Members will recall that, in February 2003, the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform, chaired by the then Member for Copeland, Jacknow LordCunningham, reported back to the House. There followed the famous occasion on which we had five votes but did not achieve a majority in favour of anything.
	The report had been carefully constructed to omit any option for the abolition of the House of Lords, which is something that I believe in. I should like to say in passing to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that my attitude to the House of Lords is similar to my attitude to a wasps' nest. We should either leave it alone or get rid of the whole bloody thing. Chopping it in half is probably the worst thing to do

Chris Bryant: You could fumigate it.

Jim Dowd: What, the House of Lords?
	I then went with a delegation, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), to press for an amendment on the abolition of the House of Lords to be included. We reasoned this with Roger and his colleagues, and they were very kind to us. Being enlightened and sensible, they agreed that they would recommend this course of action to Mr. Speaker. The power to decide whether such an amendment should be included does not lie with the Clerks; they simply recommend such proposals to the Speaker.
	We had obtained more than 100 signatures to that amendment. Technically, however, the only way of tabling it would have been to table it as an amendment to every one of the seven options that came out of the report. In a spirit of consensual reasonableness, I said to Roger, Of course, we would not expect it to be repeated on every amendment. We only need to take the top six of the subsequent amendments. After all, we would not want to block up the Order Paper. Roger then said, in his charmingly laconic, quizzical and amusing way, Ah, a gang of hardened revolutionaries not wanting to block up the Order Paperwhatever next?
	I thank Sir Roger for his advice, courtesy and service to the House over the past 40 years. I would also like to thank Lady Jennifer, who has been a valued and much appreciated volunteer at the Sydenham citizens advice bureau, where she has made a considerable contribution. Along with all other hon. Members, I wish them every happiness and good fortune in retirement.

Ian Paisley: It is always sad when friends go, and we are reminded of the onward sweep of time. Thirty-seven years ago, I was elected to the Northern Ireland Parliament, and there was an old hand there whom I had known for years. He said, I am going to tell you a few things that you need to know, Ian. First of all, the Speaker is infallible. He makes no mistakes, provided that he is sitting. When he gets up, you will realise that he is infallible, or out you will go. I am encouraged that today is the last day of term, because even if I am put out, it will only be for a few minutes. That would not worry me too much.
	That friend also told me certain strange things about Clerks. He said, You keep your eye on the Clerks, because they have the power. If you run across the Clerks of the House, you are finished. I asked him why that was, and he said, Remember that the Clerks never pray. You will probably go in to prayers, but the Clerks' seats are removed from the House at that time. The Speaker and the Chaplain take their place. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will know the scripture that says that we are to pray to our father that seeth in secret, and the father that seeth in secret shall reward us openly. No doubt the Clerks have been rewarded openly, because they have not prayed. I was rather amused by that.
	My friend also said, When you speak, and you are holding forth with fire, the Speaker could get restless and move his hand on to or off his knee, or take a pencil and tap it on the Order Paper. That is nothing to worry about. But, he said, he might lean over to consult one of the Clerks. Then you're in a different circumstance. But you might even triumph on such a day. There is one time that I will warn you ofwhen the Clerk himself moves back his head, and the Speaker moves forward his, then the guillotine is coming down. I have remembered that in my career, and I have escaped the guillotine so far. I do not know for how long.
	The Clerks do a job that is, in many ways, a thankless one. When I came into the House, there was a very robust Conservative Member, whom I will not name, who was running into trouble with the Clerks because they did not like the questions that he tabled. He used to argue with themI was with him one day, and he kept me for almost half an hour as he argued with them about a question. Then he looked at the Clerk, used language that I would not use, and said, I came to this House to ask questions, and you'll not stop me. The Clerk said, All right, I'll put down the question. Of course, the question was ruled out by the Speaker, so he made no progress. Therefore, the Clerks have great power.
	None of the present Clerks ever had the opportunity of putting me out of the House, but other Clerks had. Once, I was sitting just above where I stand now, at a time when the Tory party was in power, when all three Democratic Unionist party Members were put out. I remember with gratitude the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party who shielded me. One of the officials said, If we touch you, you will go out for six months. He said, You'll never touch him, and put his arms round meit was the first time that I was embraced by a Labour Whip. He was a fine man, and I think that he is enjoying his retirement at the moment. He was a member of the Salvation Army, and he did a good salvation job on me that day. The interesting thing was that there was no car to take me away, and the Prime Minister's car was borrowed to get rid of me. I left the House that day, was not touched, and got the Prime Minister's car to take me to the airport. That is democracy in action.
	I am grateful to Sir Roger for the courtesy that he has shown to Members from the smaller parties in the House. He has always been willing to listen to us, help us and say, This is the best way to do it. On behalf of all my colleagues, I pay tribute to him and wish him a happy retirement. We trust that he will run harder and faster with those things that will occupy his heart and mind in retirement. I endorse all that my colleagues have said about him today.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the question, I should like to add my own tribute to Sir Roger Sands. As my principal adviser on procedural and management responsibilities, he has always offered me wise counsel, tempering his advice with good humour, patience and common sense. For that, I owe him a great personal debt, and I think of him as one of the most intelligently dutiful individuals whom I have ever met. It should also not be forgotten that Sir Roger was the first Clerk to be selected as Chief Executive of the House of Commons Service, and he has done much to enhance the efficiency from which we all benefit. I know that on 30 September, the 41st anniversary of his first joining the House, Sir Roger and Lady Sands will take into retirement the thanks and best wishes of all Members past and present.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Roger Sands KCB, on his retirement from the office of the Clerk of the House, the House's gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedures of the House, for his leadership and professionalism in the discharge of his duties as chief executive of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 13th March and 19th April 2006 (Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme) and Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 3, 1, 2 and 4 to 6.
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 3

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	In all parts of the House, there has long been awareness of some of the real concerns about the way in which Northern Ireland legislation is dealt with through the Order in Council procedure. We have had many debates about such matters with Members on both sides of the House in the past 15 months during which I have had the privilege of holding this office. We have had discussions in Committee, which have sometimes spilled over into discussions on the Floor of the House. The Government have been considering how to improve the procedure, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the official Opposition spokesman and other parties last year. As it happens, the other place has helpfully tabled an amendment to deal with those matters, on which we are focusing today.
	My noble Friend Lord Rooker and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have considered the procedures in the House, and we have concluded that we need to examine how the Order in Council procedure is to be changed. Following last week's Lords amendments, the Government have given an undertaking that, if we are unable to restore devolution by 24 November, we will quickly introduce measures to make direct rule more accountable. Our intention is for the restoration of the devolved Assembly by 24 November. Many of the matters dealt with under the Order in Council procedure are properly dealt with by the Assembly, should it be reconstituted. In the event of the Assembly not being reconstitutedof course, I hope that it will bewe will consider how to make those measures more accountable, agreed through the usual channels, if I may say so, with a stage of parliamentary consideration at which Northern Ireland Orders in Council can be amended. We will also ensure that, whenever possible, we legislate for Northern Ireland through Bills.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so clear that the Government have finally listened to this request. Will he assure us, however, that in the unfortunate circumstance that the Assembly does not recommence by 24 November, we will not wait for months or years for the changes to take place? Can he assure us that the timetable will be a matter of days or weeks, not months or years?

David Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contributions on these issues. Obviously, the Government's first priority is to get the Assembly up and running, with the co-operation of colleagues on both sides of the House, by 24 November. In the unhappy event that the Assembly is not reconstituted, we will take an early opportunity to examine how to make the Order in Council procedure more appropriate, as has been discussed in another place and here. Although that will be considered as a matter of urgency, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the first priority of officials and Ministers is to get the Assembly back up and running.

Ian Paisley: Of course, we are sorry that the provision is not going through now, as Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for it for a long time. I was just looking at  Hansard from long ago, when the majority of Northern Ireland Members wanted that to be done. Success rests with the Government. If the Government put down the IRA and the so-called Protestant paramilitaryif they put an end to all the terrorism, cleaning of banknotes and so forthwe will have what we want: ideal democracy. If we can have that, however, let us have the same democracy that we have in legislation on this side of the water.

David Hanson: The right hon. Gentleman's support is always welcome, and I am grateful for the support that he has given to our objectives today. Let me say to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman in particular, that the Government's prime objective is to get the Assembly up and running again. The matters dealt with by Order in Council are dealt with in that way because the Assembly is not sitting. I understand that the Government have responsibilities in regard to the restoration of the Assembly, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman with due respect that responsibilities also lie with all the political parties that are elected in Northern Ireland to ensure that the Assembly is reconstituted.
	I ask the House to disagree with the amendment because in my opinionand I hope that this is acceptable to Opposition Memberswhat it proposes is unnecessary in view of the Government's undertaking to consider further parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council. I hope that Members will not oppose the motion, but if they do, I hope that they will understand where the Government are coming from.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, and in particular for the significant concession that the Government have announced today in response to repeated arguments from my right hon. and hon. Friends here and in the House of Lords, and from the Liberal Democrat and Democratic Unionist parties, about the unacceptable and undemocratic nature of our present system for Orders in Council affecting Northern Ireland.
	Let me say at the outset that I share the Minister's hope that devolution can be restored in Northern Ireland by 24 November, and I hope that the Government succeed in that objective. It will come as no surprise to the Minister if I repeat what I have said on many previous occasionsthat in my view restoration of devolution will be possible only if the republican movement is finally willing both to recognise the legitimacy of the police service and the courts in Northern Ireland, and to give its full and active support to those institutions. But if for whatever reason devolution cannot be restored by 24 November, Conservative Members will look to the Government to move quicklyI use their own wordto introduce new legislation to change the way in which Orders in Council are dealt with here.
	It is intolerable that legislation which, if it concerned England, would be dealt with by a Bill, and which would be amenable to amendment and detailed debate by all parties and by Back Benchers in all parts of the House, should, in respect of Northern Ireland, be the subject of a time-limited debate on a single Order in Council, almost always taking place in a Committee Room upstairs. Worse, the Committees allow only perhaps four Northern Ireland Members to participate in discussions of measures relating to education, local government reform and health which directly and significantly affect the lives of the people whom those Members are sent here to represent. Insult is added to injury by the fact that in the case of Orders in Council as in that of any secondary legislation, Parliament must either accept or reject what the Government put before it. It has no power to amend an Order in Council.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since the announcement that this move would be made, some people in Northern Ireland are describing it as a concession of a political nature? What the hon. Gentleman is describing, however, is something that should have been done years ago. It is something that stands in its own right, irrespective of deadlines, the restoration of devolution or anything else. It is something that ought to have been done already, and ought now to be done as quickly as possible.

David Lidington: I agree. I described it earlier as a concession by the Government, but I would also describe it as a concession to democracy and common sense.

Sammy Wilson: Given that it is a concession to democracy and not to a particular party, and given that between now and the time when devolution is restored in Northern Irelandif it is restoredthere is still a large amount of controversial legislation in the pipeline, is it not appropriate for the concession to be implemented now, rather than the Minister's making a promise for the future as he has today?

David Lidington: I would have preferred the concession to have been introduced much earlier, but I think that when it comes to measures that affect the way in which Parliament collectively deals with legislation it is best, if at all possible, to achieve reform by means of consensus across the House of Commons rather than by making procedural moves a subject of party political dispute.
	In view of the firm assurances that the Government have given today, we shall not oppose the motion, but if devolution is not restored in November, we shall hold Ministers to account and expect them to deliver what they have promised to the House.

Lembit �pik: The Minister and the House know how strongly I have felt about this matter over the past two years. Indeed, on some occasions during Statutory Instrument Committees I have been almost angry with the Government for failing to make the change. The Minister knows, but I warn him again, that he would not like me when I am angry. Nevertheless, I am relieved to know that he and the Government have seen the sense of a change for which the Liberal Democrats have called for more than two years.
	I recall outrageous occasions on which the will of Northern Ireland politicians, speaking in unison, has been ignored in preference to the dogma of the Government. For example, the Government lost a vote on tuition fees in a Grand Committee in which they had a majority because Northern Ireland Members and others felt so strongly that that was the wrong move for Northern Ireland. Of course, we had no opportunity to amend the legislation, and Northern Ireland had imposed on it a piece of legislation developed entirely by the Government, with scant regard for the wishes of the people there.
	In that context, I thank the Minister for placing on record the Government's intention to address the way in which we legislate for Northern Ireland in Westminster. That has been a long time coming. The Liberal Democrats, together with Conservative and indeed Northern Ireland Members, have expressed concerns on many occasions. We are grateful that the Government have now responded and are prepared to act.
	We also appreciate the Minister's important observation that this is nothing to do with planning for failure. We are firmly committed to devolution, and we hope that the continuing priority of the Government and, indeed, politicians speaking for Northern Ireland constituencies is the re-establishment of the devolved Assembly. However, if the devolved Assembly is not restored by that dateand, as I have said, we sincerely hope that it iswe must move quickly to ensure that whatever processes are implemented in this place in the interests of legislation for the Province are implemented speedily.
	I asked the Minister to confirm that the Government's timetable for change would be days or weeks rather than months or years, but I noticed that he declined to be that specific. I will be specific. In my judgment, the Government need to move on that change by the end of December 2006, because the situation has gone on long enough. Even December 2006 will provide the Government with four or five weeks to initiate a dialogue and produce plans to change the methodology for Northern Ireland legislation, thereby enabling it to be amended.
	We also very much welcome the intention to legislate for Northern Ireland by means of primary legislation, wherever possible, but will the Minister clarify precisely what that means? Will we see more Bills like this one, where a number of measures that are not related to each other are all scrutinised at once, or will it mean that Northern Ireland measures will be included in legislation for England and Wales that is proceeding on the same subject areas at the same time? Given that we have debated anonymous registration in the Bill, it would have been much better if Northern Ireland provisions had been included by the latter means. I simply cannot understand why we separate Northern Ireland legislation from legislation intended for England and Wales where it is perfectly obvious that the same rules apply.
	However, we appreciate that that would require discussions between various Departments, so I rhetorically ask the Minister whether such a feat would be possible. I sincerely hope [Interruption.] I hear an equivocal response from the Minister so I will take the positive part of it. Silo thinking has to some extent made it difficult for the Northern Ireland Office to work with other Departments, where doing so would offer economies of scale and might lead to more consistent legislation. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be better co-operation and co-ordination between the various Northern Ireland departments and Departments in Whitehall?
	Finally, this is an occasion when the Government are asking us to trust them without their having made specific legislative proposals or any specific modifications that could, through amendment, initiate the process that we are discussing in the Bill. I do not always trust the Government, but on this occasion I do, and I sincerely believe that the Minister is sincere and that his word is good. For that reason [Interruption.]

David Simpson: The Minister is laughing.

Lembit �pik: He is laughing with surprise and relief that on this one occasion we trust him [Interruption.] I sense from mutterings not many Benches behind me that others may be somewhat more distrustful. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats accept the Government's promise on trust and we assume that we are talking about movement within a five-week period after 25 November. We also assume that changes will be implemented through statute by the end of February. On that basis, we thank the Minister for listening to our views on this important issue and we will not oppose the Government.

Kate Hoey: I would have supported the Lords amendments today, but given that the Minister has proposed what we all accept is a necessary step forward for securing democracy in Northern Ireland, I am happy to go along with it. I strongly urge that the work is done over the summer, so that we are ready to put these measures through as soon as the House returns after the recess.
	I, too, hope that the Assembly will be back by 24 November. In the last few months, we have seen the Order in Council procedure used in a totally undemocratic way. Quite frankly, the Government are not seeking votes in Northern Ireland and they do not care about the people of Northern Ireland in the same sense that they care about the people of London, for example. If every single London Member said that they did not want something to happen, it would not happen. That was the case quite recently when London MPs were very angry about health issues and primary care trusts, and proposals were changed. On many Northern Ireland issues, however, all the parties from the nationalists to the Unionists support certain measures, but the Government have still railroaded their own policies through by the ridiculous Order in Council procedure.
	Whatever the rights and wrongs of selection in Northern IrelandI happen to think that the education system in Northern Ireland is a good system, even though, like every education system, it can be made betterforcing through a measure in two and a half hours in a Committee is not good enough. One Labour Member was taken off the Committee because he had said that he would vote against the Government. I, of course, would not even be considered for that Committee. The Government seem to think that it is all right to put me on European Standing Committees or Statutory Instrument Committees, but not on a Northern Ireland Committee.
	Disgracefully, that education measure was forced through. That was using education as a form of blackmail against the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians, when we all know that the vast majority of people there, although they may have wanted to change the way in which the 11-plus worked, did not want to stop academic selection. Minister after Minister stood up and said, Oh, we are not getting rid of grammar schools; we are just getting rid of academic selection. Come on, really!
	I am pleased that we might be beginning to treat Northern Ireland people with the same respect and to accord them the same rights as we give to people in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the UK. If my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in England and their constituents were treated in the way that Northern Ireland MembersI include my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) who is in his place behind meand their constituents are treated, they would find it disgraceful.
	If the new Assembly does not get up and running, I have real doubts about what might happen under some new procedure, because Sinn Fein has wanted to get rid of grammar schools since day one. If Sinn Fein can do anything to stop that Assembly coming back on 24 November, just in order to get rid of academic selection, that is what it will do. If Sinn Fein manages to stop the Assembly until just after 24 November, I hope that this House will find some way forward. I also hope that the Liberal Democrats would see how Sinn Fein had exploited the issue.
	To go back to the nub of the matter, we must find a way of ensuring that the democratically elected MPs from Northern Ireland can take the necessary decisions. Where are they in all this? Why are they not accorded much more power? They have been elected and taken their seats in this place. They should be listened to much more, but because the Government do not seek a single vote in Northern Ireland, they refuse to organise there and refuse to give those people of the UK the opportunity to vote Labour or join the Labour party in any meaningful sense. It is so frustrating.
	The Minister may not think so, but I have a lot of time for him and I believe that he has tried hard in very difficult circumstances [Interruption.] I am probably ruining his remaining career in saying that. Seriously, though, he has tried hard and it can be extremely difficult to be the front-person when the Secretary of State has not been there, yet is pulling the strings. I am pleased that we are moving forward, but it must happen soon over the summer. If the Assembly does not return, we must ensure that the legislation goes through as quickly as possible. Let us do all that we canthe Government must do all that they canover the summer to help the democratically elected parties in Northern Ireland to form an Assembly so that the people of Northern Ireland can have true democracy.

Peter Robinson: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)and never more so than today. I completely endorse her comments, particularly those tangentially related to the education order, but I also welcome the general principles that she has enunciated.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) from the early 1970s and myself from the later '70s have consistently championed the cause of ending the Order in Council procedure. As Northern Ireland elected representatives, we were capable of speaking on Second Readings of legislation relating entirely to England and Wales. We could table amendments and speak to them in Committeeat great length, if we uncharacteristically wanted to do soand we could speak on Report and Third Reading. However, we could not do the same in respect of legislation that applied to our own part of the United Kingdom. It was irrational that we should have a greater say in the affairs of England and Wales than in those of the constituents who had sent us here from Northern Ireland. It was an absurdityone that, regrettably, the Conservative Government did not attempt to rectify at the time; nor have the Labour Government done so, except that it appears that they have accepted that there is a case to be answered.
	Perhaps I am just a sceptic, but I rather suspect that the Government making this concession had something to do with the strength of opinion of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Cross Benchers in the House of Lords. The Government recognised that it might be in the interests of the Bill to make this concession, rather than the Minister having a Damascus road experience on the issue. However it may have come about, we are glad that the Government are moving in that direction, although, like the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we would have preferred it to be done now.
	Important legislation will be dealt with between now and whenever the Government rectify the situation, and particularly because issues such as water charging will come before the House. Those issues are of immense importance to our constituents and, unfortunately, they will be dealt with under the procedure, whereby only a few of our Members may get the opportunity on some delegated legislation Committee upstairs to speak on the issue for a few minutes. That is unsatisfactory when dealing with such important issues.
	The Minister has not spoken about the process by which he would improve the Order in Council procedure. The Lords indicated that it wanted to make Orders in Council amendable and to introduce a procedure by which the Government could withdraw the order to consider the decision of the House and return with an amended order if necessary, or if the Lords did not amend it, the proposal would be adopted by the House. So the Lords made very specific proposals in its amendment, but the Minister has not said whether he would allow Orders in Council to be amended in such circumstances as may come about. The Government still have not told us about that.
	All we know is that they would attempt to get greater democracy into the system. At some later stage, they could decide that we would have two hours instead of an hour and a half to debate an order, or three hours upstairs instead of two and a half, and they might trumpet that as being a great blow for democracy. The Minister needs to give us a clear indication of the nature and scope of his intention in relation to any change to make the process more democratic.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the essential element that we are looking for is amendability?

Peter Robinson: Absolutelythat is the very point that I am making. The House must be capable of amending an Order in Council. It is ludicrous that if one reads an Order in Council and notices a glaring, obvious mistakeone that every hon. Member might accept is an errorit still cannot be changed. There is no method to change it; the Government must withdraw it and come back at a later stage. It is right that the House should be able to amend that Order in Council. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his intention.

Nigel Dodds: Given the consensus that appears to have broken out on both sides of the House about the need to move quickly on the issue and to introduce changes quickly if the deadline for devolution is not met, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea now for the Government to enter into discussions with the parties in the House? Discussions are going on in Northern Irelandsome are more fruitful than othersbut such a discussion would be extremely fruitful, so that the ideas that my hon. Friend is suggesting could be gone into in more detail.

Peter Robinson: Yes, and in fact the Government already accept the principle that they should do so in this very Bill. The Bill is centrally designed by the Government to introduce proposals for the devolution of criminal justice and policing matters, which can only be devolved to an Assembly that does not exist, so the Government recognise the need to look ahead on these matters. They recognise that preparatory work needs to be done and that legislation needs to be passed.
	If it is right, even before the change in legislation that will be necessary for an Assembly to exist in Northern Ireland, that the Minister should be looking ahead to policing and justice powers being devolved, I am sure that the same Minister would be very content to open up discussions on those matters in the circumstance that many of us do not wantdevolution not occurring in Northern Ireland. Although devolution in Northern Ireland might be the Minister's priority, he should not close his eyes to the possibility that it might not happen. We want it to happen and the Minister knows the circumstances in which it can happen.
	I am sure that the Minister was as disappointed as we were when he read the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that indicated the ongoing criminality that still exists not just with ordinary paramilitaries from the loyalist side and from the dissidents, but from those who, according to the Minister, are suitable to be in government. Of course, that information will militate against our getting devolution up and running. I hope that the Minister will look at the alternative.
	There are always exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule I have always found in the House that the more consideration given to a Bill and the more scrutiny of legislation that goes on, the better the end product. If that is generally accepted as a rule, the Minister must introduce legislation to change the Order in Council procedure, so that we might get better legislation in Northern Ireland. I welcome the move that the Minister has made.

Laurence Robertson: With regard to amending Orders in Council, does the hon. Gentleman recall that a miscellaneous provisions order, which covered two completely different subjects, was considered just two or three weeks ago? Does that not demonstrate how very difficult it is to govern any part of the United Kingdom in that way?

Peter Robinson: Over the 27 or 28 years that I have been a Member, I have seen the House pass some legislation in an hour and a half, sometimes at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, with barely any Members present, except for Northern Ireland Members. That is no way to deal with legislation. Some of these orders, even though they have might have two different elements, can be very important to the lives of people in Northern Ireland. Our business should not be treated in that way and I trust that the Minister's undertaking, which I hope will be strengthened in his response, will soon be put in place if devolution does not occur in November.

David Hanson: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for welcoming the proposals that the Government announced both in Committee and in another place last week and that I have confirmed to the whole House today. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. They are aware from the discussions that we have had on this matter that, as I have said previously, if we are unable to restore devolution by 24 November, we will quicklyI emphasise the word quicklyintroduce measures to make direct rule more accountable, including the opportunity for an amendability stage in the parliamentary consideration of Northern Ireland Orders in Council. It is my intentionwe can discuss this matter on the return of the Houseto initiate discussions on those matters with the usual channels, to consider how we can examine the procedure in the event of devolution failing to occur on 24 November.
	Again, I reconfirm to the House that I intend to focus my time and that of my officials on ensuring that we get the Assembly back for the 24 November deadline, because that is the key element where the decisions that we deal with by Order in Council should be made. I remind hon. Members that I have said that the Order in Council procedure is not satisfactory on every occasion that I have moved the motion on such an order during the 15 months that I have held my position. It is not a satisfactory way to proceed.

Kate Hoey: I appreciate what the Minister says about you the procedure not being satisfactory. Will you then explain why you used Order in Council procedures to push through an education order when the same Labour Members were being urged to go through the Lobby to keep selection in England three weeks earlier? You used the Order in Council procedure to put that education order through in two and a half hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that she should not say you, because that means me.

David Hanson: The Government have taken this decision on policy issues relating to this matter, and a key point for my hon. Friend and all hon. Members is that although the Order in Council procedure was unsatisfactory, there was a debate and a vote on the education order upstairs in Committee. The Opposition prayed against the education order in Committee. There was a vote, of all Members who wished to participate in that vote, on the Floor of the House, and the Government were supported and the proposals were agreed to. So although the Order in Council procedure is unsatisfactory, there was even in that controversial case an ability for all Members, if they so wished, to vote on that matter in the House today.
	We have had a degree of consensus on the matters under discussion. It is not for me to break that consensus, but I wish simply to state that although I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) who speaks for the official Opposition, after 10 years of a Labour Government we have brought forward proposals to amend the Order in Council, but in the previous 20 years of Conservative governmentfrom 1972, and up until todayno changes were made. As I do not wish to break the consensus because that would add a sour note to the proceedings, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I thank him for his support for the measures and I commend the Government proposal to the House.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 12
	  
	Extension of categories of permissible donors

Lords amendment: No. 1.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2. I call Mr. Peter Hainor, rather, David Hanson.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As somebody once said, They all look alike after a while.
	The impact of these amendments on Northern Ireland politics would be serious. They would remove clauses 12 and 13the permissible donors clauses would be entirely removed, which would have the effect of barring Irish citizens and bodies from donating to parties and regulated donees in Northern Ireland from November 2007. The Government firmly believe that Northern Ireland parties and regulated donees should continue to be able to accept donations from Irish citizens and other Irish bodies who can currently donate to Irish partiesas well as accepting donations from those who can donate in the UK, of coursefollowing the end of the final disapplication period in October 2007.
	That policy is consistent with the Good Friday agreement. It reflects our belief that Irish citizens should be allowed to make such donations to take account of the special role Irelandincluding the Republic of Irelandhas in relation to Northern Ireland's political culture. That would still represent a significant step forward from the current position in Northern Ireland, under which donations may come from anywhere and anyone in the world and there is no obligation on anybody or any party to disclose such donations.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister is trying to put a gloss on what is clearly a discriminatory provision, against Unionist parties and Unionist people in Northern Ireland in particular. How can the Minister justify a special provision that allows Irish citizens and organisations to donate to parties in Northern Ireland, when he knows full well that those donations will be completely one-sided and will have no benefit whatever for Unionist parties or the Unionist population? If the Good Friday agreement or the Belfast agreement is supposed to be about equality, this clearly flies in the face of equality.

David Hanson: I genuinely say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot estimate who or what or when or where any of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland might wish to donate in respect of parties in the north during any election. I expect that potentially there will be significant donations to the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein and other parties, but it is perfectly possible that there are individuals who live in the Republic of Ireland who wish to donate to any party that represents individuals and stands for election in Northern Ireland elections for the Assembly or any other body.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I simply put it to him that, in this context, if we were to speculate upon percentages and try to arrive at a view as to the proportion of any donations that would go to Unionist parties, there would be several noughts after the decimal point before a positive figure were reached?

David Hanson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it is not for me to determine the what, who, where and when of any donations to any parties from citizens of the Irish Republic or businesses that operate in the Irish Republic. It is for me to be consistent with the Good Friday agreement, which recognises that there is a significant step forward in these measures and that the potential for donations from citizens of the Republic of Ireland to political parties to the north is a part of that.
	I know that concerns exist both in this House and in another place about how the permissible donors clauses would operate in practicein particular, in relation to the conditions that Irish citizens and bodies who can donate in Ireland would have to meet in order to be able to donate to Northern Ireland parties, and how those donations would be checked and verified in the future by the Electoral Commission. I, and my noble Friend Lord Rooker in dealing with this in another place, have recognised those concerns and have sought to address them when they have been raised, both here and in another place. As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, the detail of how the permissible donors clauses would work will be set out in UK secondary legislation, following consultation with the Electoral Commissionit is important that the commission has a key role in this matter. This detail, which would include the criteria on how we check individual Irish donors and Republic of Ireland companies that wish to donate to parties in the north, will then be specified by an order that will have to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The Lords and Members of this House would therefore have an opportunity fully and publicly to debate these issues further when an order was made.
	Therefore, for a range of reasons I oppose Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 as they are not compatible with the Good Friday agreement to preclude Irish citizens and bodies from making political donations to Northern Ireland political parties or regulated donees.
	I am conscious that this debate finishes at 3.25 pm, and I know that many Members wish to participate, but may I make one final point? Today is a day for retirements, and the Clerk of the House has recently retired. Today is also the final day that a Northern Ireland Minister has received advice from Jonathan Margetts. He is a member of the Northern Ireland Office staff, and he has been acting as head of parliamentary legislation and has been involved in that in the NIO since 1972, after working for the Home Office for nine years previously. If this is my last opportunity to speak in this debate, I wish him and his family every success in his retirement, and I thank him for his long service to 15 Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland during that time.

Laurence Robertson: I echo the Minister's words of congratulations to the retiring adviser. I do not wish to speak for long, as a number of other Members wish to contribute on this issue and there are two more amendments to consider in not many minutes.
	The Minister referred to the fact that the Republic plays an important role in the politics of Northern Ireland. That is undoubtedly the case. When this Bill was before us a few weeks ago, we tabled an amendment suggesting a five-year limit to the continuation of donations from the Republic. One of our concerns was that it was having a disproportionate effect on the politics in Northern Ireland. We did not seek to end it immediately; we put in the five-year limit to allow parties to re-establish. Our concern was not entirely to do with the amount of money or the sources of the money from the Republic. We were also concerned about money coming from America, because there is no doubt that in the past, not only has the Republic had a role in the politics of Northern Ireland, but NORAIDfor examplehas played an unfortunate role, too. We discussed that matter at great length at that time and I do not intend to speak any longer now, but I wish to hear what is about to be said by Members of Northern Ireland parties.

Lembit �pik: The Minister will see how strongly Liberal Democrats feel about this matter by the increasing number of Members on our Benches to listen to this debate.  [Interruption.] Yes, and perhaps to listen to me as well. Those Members include my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), for Cambridge (David Howarth), for Colchester (Bob Russell)and even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has come into the Chamber to lend his support to my words this afternoon.
	Throughout our discussions on the Bill in this House and another place, we have been at pains to stress to the Government that we do not object in principle to the proposed extension, but we are concerned about how it will work in practice. We have raised some specific anddare I say it?reasonable questions about the proposed scheme, but what has been frustrating is that Ministers, particularly in another place, have been unable to give any coherent responses. We have either been greeted with silence or with answers so vague that they simply raise suspicions that we were being sold a pup.
	I am glad to see that the Minister is effectively trying to fill in the blanks and to provide some clarity in the fog of confusion that hung over these clauses until now. We understand that the additional categories of donors would have to meet prescribed conditions, which would be set out in an order once consultation had taken place with the Electoral Commission. However, even now, we have not really been given an indication of what such conditions might be. It is not enough to expect Parliament to agree to such a huge change in the arrangements for donations to political parties, given that we know so few details about how those arrangements are to work.

David Hanson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. For example, someone who is an Irish citizen would have to produce his passport for verification as a potential donor, and companies would have to be registered in the Republic of Ireland in order to make donations. That is the sort of issue that we are discussing with the Electoral Commission and, hopefully, we can tighten up the situation and thereby address the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Lembit �pik: The Minister's response is helpful. Perhaps he could put on the record, by way of a further intervention, a specific commitment that before any such legislation is implemented there will be full consultation not just with the Electoral Commission, but with anyone and any organisations that have an interest in this matter, so that they can make specific representations to the Government and to Ministers as the legislation progresses. Can the Minister give us that assurance right now?

David Hanson: As I have said, this matter will be subject to an order, which will be debated in this House and published accordingly. I am very happy to receive representations on it, as is the normal practice. Potentially, it could be an Order in Council dealt with post-24 November, and would qualify for discussion on the ground that we debated earlier today.

Lembit �pik: I am pleased in two ways with that response. First, the Minister suggests that this could be the first of the amendable Orders in Council. That is important, because it gives us something of a time frame for the matters that we have just discussed. Secondly, I am encouraged to hear that he would be willing to accept formal representations on these matters. Let me underline the importance of the Minister's responsewe now begin to get a time frame for when the Government must make the amendability proposals, which is encouraging.
	It is important to be assured that the Government are thinking about these conditions. The Minister gave us two examples, which is helpful. We need a coherent strategy that ensures that the loopholes are dealt with. It would also be useful to know over time what avenues of communication will be set up between political parties in the north of Ireland, the Electoral Commission and the agencies in the south of Ireland, so that sufficient checks can be made.
	Our donation system is at least sometimes fairly open and transparent, but this is new territory for the United Kingdom, in the sense of working across a national boundary. It would be unreasonable to expect the Northern Ireland Office to operate solely as a single agency to set these precedents. I hope that silo thinking will not prevent a strategic approach from being taken.
	In essence, we simply want to be sure that the Minister will expect a political party in Northern Ireland to take specific steps in order to satisfy itself that a donation was from someone who is genuinely an Irish citizen. On the basis that the Minister has given some useful examples by way of interventions, and an assurance that this legislation, if it comes forward through an Order in Council, will be amendable, we are happy to support it today.

David Hanson: I should confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the likely avenue is affirmative resolution in the House, rather than an Order in Council, although the latter is possible.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and I understand why he wants to make that point clear; nevertheless, I still feel that we are beginning to see a timetable for amendable Orders in Council, which must be roughly the same timetable as the one for this legislation. That is helpful.

Alasdair McDonnell: I rise to oppose the Lords amendments, which would narrow the list of political donors, restrict funding and strangle parties such as my own. In the light of an earlier question, it is important to point out that we are not talking only about parties such as the Social, Democratic and Labour party. Unionist parties derive a small but nevertheless significant amount of money from across the border with the Irish Republic.
	A law that outlaws the raising of funds for Northern Ireland parties on the island of Ireland as a whole is a bad, ineffective and unworkable law. Moreover, it runs against the grain of relationships within these islands between Britain and the Irish Republic that have improved so much in the past 25 or 30 years. It not only makes no sense for legitimate parties in Northern Ireland to be banned from raising legitimate funds anywhere else in the island of Ireland; it also undermines democracy and the existing support for it.
	My party survives financially because of good people south of the border. We derive a lot of our funding from within the north, which we require in order to help out. I am glad to note from recent records that our party is now in the black for the first time in a long time, thanks, in part, to donations. I regret that other parties are in some difficulty, but, if they sought a little help from across the border in the Irish Republic, they could perhaps bring themselves into the black.
	The issue is not only large-scale fundraising. The ridiculous nature of this law is particularly apparent along the border. Our small branches and associations in places such as Derry hold an event of some sort, yet Muff is 2 or 3 miles down the road. Ballyshannon is 2 or 3 miles down the road from Belleek in Fermanagh. It is just not humanly possible to implement this law. It is like introducing a law that says that Labour associations on the English border with Scotland are not allowed to make such requests of people across the border. The same point applies to Conservative or Liberal Democrat associations. That is the significance of this measure at local level.  [Interruption.] Does someone wish to intervene?  [Interruption.] There is so much muttering going on that I would rather give way.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is well aware from what was said in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the dangers and difficulties associated with money laundering and the amount of money sloshing around the Irish Republic. Will he tell me, in the course of his self-serving speech, how, in his view, if this provision goes through, it will be impossible to launder money for Sinn Fein from south of the border into their coffers in Northern Ireland?

Alasdair McDonnell: Unfortunately, Sinn Fein will manage to launder money whatever we do in this House. Indeed, it is aided and abetted by the shennanigens of the Democratic Unionist party at every turn. The reality is that we have to bring back devolution to Northern Ireland. There is a competition on at the moment between the DUP and Sinn Fein to see who can be disruptive and who can be the greatest wreckers. Frankly, primarily this is about regulating and creating transparency. My party, the SDLP, is legal and believes in the rule of law, legitimacy and openness. We believe that, rather than creating bad laws that are porous and dysfunctional, we should create good ones that are inclusive. The Lords amendment makes this a bad law that will not work, and in my view it should be rejected. We should continue to try to make laws that are as comprehensive, open and transparent as possible.

Peter Robinson: I see that the Minister is starting to tidy his papershe is already thinking of his holidays. Indeed, he probably has his swimming trunks on under his suit, ready to go [ Laughter. ] I suggest that when he is on the beach he should not bury his head in the sand in the same way as he has in the Chamber today. He had a credulous gape on his face when it was suggested that there might be a minuscule amount going to Unionist parties as opposed to the amount going to nationalist parties, which indicates that either he is hiding the real intent of his measure or he is completely out of touch with the politics of Northern Ireland.
	I suspect that it is the former. The reality is that the Minister is doing this for one partythe Labour party's sister party, the SDLP. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) is right. Sinn Fein does not need this measure. It can just use the Northern Bank proceeds or the proceeds from all its other gangsterism and other illicit means. The hon. Gentleman admits that Sinn Fein is still involved in criminality, but he wants us to go into government with it. Clearly, it is a measure designed principally to help the SDLP. It is therefore a discriminatory measure. It will discriminate against Unionists and in favour of the SDLP.

Alasdair McDonnell: rose

Peter Robinson: I will give the hon. Gentleman another go.

Alasdair McDonnell: I did not go to Clontibret. I did not have my fine paid for me in punts. My name is not Peter Punt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Neither did I.

Peter Robinson: It shows how the hon. Gentleman's mind works when he makes an intervention on an irrelevant issue that has nothing to do with the funding of political parties. It shows that he is attempting to cover up the fact that it is the SDLP, and the SDLP alone, that is the reason the Government are introducing this measure.
	Why was there a prohibition placed on parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom? It was because those who were resident in and citizens of countries outside the United Kingdom should not be allowed to influence the politics of the United Kingdom. But the Government are providing for precisely that in Northern Ireland, where they will allow people from another jurisdiction to have a direct influence on the politics of Northern Ireland. The Minister is saying that the principle is good generally for the United Kingdom, but that the Government are prepared to throw their principles out to make the politics of Northern Ireland go in the direction that they want.
	I oppose this change by the Government and support the suggestion made by the House of Lords for the way forward. We intend to force the issue to a Division.

David Hanson: I am grateful for hon. Members' contributions. I am sorry that we have such a full House to hear the different tonein terms of the context of the debateof the contribution by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). This Bill is about the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and relationships with the Irish Republic and individuals who live and work there. It is consistent with the Good Friday agreement to allow citizens of and businesses in the Irish Republic to donate to political parties that operate in Northern Ireland. It is fair and proper, and an acceptable proposal for the Government to support. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
	
	 The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 3, 1 and 2: Mr. Michael Foster, Mr. David Hanson, Lembit pik, Mr. Laurence Robertson and Lynda Waltho to be members of the Committee; Mr. David Hanson to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the Quorum of the Committee. [Liz Blackman.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments Nos. 3, 1 and 2 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Adjournment (Summer Recess)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Liz Blackman.]

Keith Vaz: I am delighted to participate in this debate, although I am sure that it will not be as exciting as the previous debate and the comments from both sides of the House. I want to raise two local issues and one international issue relating to Lebanon.
	On the local front, I am concerned about the latest plans of the Leicestershire health trust for the downgrading of the pathway project. Two years ago, the University of Leicestershire health trust decided to rebuild our three hospitals in Leicesterthe Leicester general hospital, the Leicester royal infirmary and Glenfield hospital. They were to be completely rebuilt at a cost of about 761 million. A few weeks ago, we were told in Leicester that because of the cuts that had been decided on, the project would be downsized to a cost of approximately 500 million. The result is that Leicester general hospital, which is in my constituency, will not be rebuilt.
	Obviously, we are delighted that one of the Leicester MPs is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Although she cannot intervene on local matters, because she is in charge of our hospitals all over the country, the fact that she is a Leicester MP makes her more aware of the issues that concern people in the city.
	My plea is that the local health authority understand that downsizing the project, and thereby not rebuilding Leicester general hospital, will cause enormous difficulties in the future. Instead of a rebuild, we have been promised a refurbishment and the use of modular buildings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) and I went to look at a modular building. Such buildings have a life span of only 25 years, and although they would be newer than other parts of the hospital, they would have to be dismantled at the end of that period and a new extension constructed.
	In a 21st-century health service, it is vital that we have the buildings to support its services. I agree with the fundamental principle that services matter and it is important that local people have access to excellent health care, but if they do not have buildings in which to provide it, they will suffer in the long run.
	The second issue concerns my constituent, Malde Modwadia, who many years ago was falsely accused and convicted of theft. The conviction was quashed and under section 133(4) of the Criminal Justice Act he applied for an assessment in respect of loss of income and the compensation due to him for false arrest and conviction. I have had much correspondence with at least five Home Office Ministers requesting a meeting to discuss the principle of the case.
	Clearly, the situation affects Dr. Modwadia, his career, his reputation and the livelihood of his family, and it is important that others in a similar positionwho are falsely accused and convicted and whose convictions are quashed on appealshould have the proper level of compensation.
	With the current system, under section 133(4) of the Criminal Justice Act, it is not possible to appeal against the decision of the assessor. In this case, the assessor was Lord Brennan, a member of the other place and a distinguished lawyer who clearly understands the way in which the legal system operates. However, despite the eminence of Lord Brennan, the fact remains that if an assessment is wrongaccording to Dr. Modwadia, his assessment does not take into consideration his loss of earnings over the past 20 years; he was a qualified doctor and by now he would have been a very senior consultant in a hospital in the United Kingdomit is extremely important that somebody else should have the opportunity to look at that assessment. Under the current law, no one can do so. I had a private Member's Billa behind-the-Chair Billbefore the House, which has now fallen. It is extremely important to ensure that Ministers are aware of the gap in the law, in relation not just to Dr. Modwadia but to other people in similar situations, and that we have a right of appeal against an assessment that has already been made.
	My final point is about Lebanon and a call that I received yesterday from a person who operates a glass-making factory on the road between Beirut and Damascus. Two days ago, he evacuated his employees from the factory, because he feared that bombs might fall on it. The day before yesterday, four Israeli missiles hit the factory and razed it to the ground. There is absolutely nothing left. His concernand the concern, I am sure, of others involved in similar casesis what will happen about compensation for British citizens who have property in Lebanon. I rang the Lebanese ambassador, who was not available. I then had a lengthy conversationit was a bit heatedwith the deputy ambassador for Israel. He explained why Israel was doing what it was doing. I have enormous sympathy with the comments made recently by the Minister for the Middle East; I agree with everything that he said about the disproportionate nature of the Israeli attacksbut I put that to one side. My concern is what happens to British citizens whose property is being destroyed.
	Clearly the Foreign Office is fully engaged in the cases of those who are trying to get out of Lebanon, and I pay tribute to Ministers and officials, who have moved extremely fast to make sure that as many British citizens as possible are removed and brought to the safety of other countries. However, the worry for my constituent and others is that they have nowhere to register their loss of property. Obviously, the people who worked in the factory no longer have jobs, because the factory is no longer there. We cannot register that with the Israeli authorities, because they have no mechanism for doing so. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will be able to give some indication to the House of what should happen to those who are in such a situation. I look forward to hearing his full response to the three issues that I have raised.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have reminded the House that there is an eight-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches. However, it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman was already aware of that.

Paul Burstow: Unlike my colleagues on the other Front Benches, I will not be able to respond to the debate, because I will have the pleasure of listening to it after I have spoken. I want to speak on three issues and, like others, to address constituents' concerns; then I look forward to listening to the contributions of others. The three issues concern the licensing laws and how they are being implemented, planning policy guidance and how it applies to and impacts on my constituents, and finally, funding for the voluntary sector in the provision of health care services and the relationship with the NHS.
	I shall first deal with the temporary event notice, a mechanism that allows for the temporary licensing of premises. It was introduced in November 2005 under the Licensing Act 2003. Recently a number of my constituents contacted me after a local pub, the Angel in Angel Hill, started playing music in its garden into the early hours of the morning. Residents who had made representations to the local licensing authority to ensure that the pub's licence restricted the playing of music outside at certain times were, not surprisingly, rather put out by the fact that it seemed that licence conditions were being broken.
	After further inquiries were made of the pub, the local council and the police, my constituents were told that the pub was operating under a temporary event notice, and that none of the normal conditions of the pub's licence applied. The approach taken under the Act is referred to as light touch, and the question is how that applies to personal licence holders. At the moment, they simply apply for a temporary event notice and make the council and police aware that they are doing so. There are no grounds for refusal by the council, and there is no mechanism for consultation with local people. In effect, it is a process of rubber-stamping. Today I want to focus on the administrative arrangements for that.
	The Government justify that light-touch approach with what they think are highly restrictive conditions applied to the use of TENs. The notices can take effect for only 96 hours at a time, and can be issued only 12 times in a calendar year for any one premises. The consultation undertaken by the Department stated that such notices were intended to apply primarily to representatives of schools or church groups. The TENs were a way of lightening the administrative load on them so that there was not so much paperwork. The problem is that that cosy picture does not really tally with my constituents' experiences. The reality is that the notices are being used by pubs to avoid the conditions of their licenses. Figures from my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, show that nearly 25 per cent. of notices issued between November 2005 and June 2006 were issued to pubs, so the Angel is no isolated case.
	The simple fact is that the temporary event notice mechanism creates a loophole in the licensing laws that smart licensees use to get round the conditions imposed on them after public consultation. I do not blame the pub or its landlord for using the loophole; I blame the Government for not foreseeing that get-out clause in the new regime. As a result, for up to 48 days a year the licensing laws and the conditions set under them can be set aside and ignored. That is not light-touch licensing but soft-touch licensing, and action is required before the recess.
	I have spoken in this House about the problem of predatory developers who apply to build housing on back garden land. Residents in my constituency are running a campaign to protect back garden land from such developers and are asking the Government to change their advice in planning policy guidance. I strongly support that campaign. Current advice under PPG3 designates back garden lands, which is the
	area of land attached to a building,
	as previously developed land. If the back gardens in my constituency and many others like it are designated brownfield land, it becomes ripe for development.
	Crucially, that designation fails to take account of factors such as the biodiversity offered by back gardens. A study undertaken by scientists at the university of Sheffield states that urban gardens are a significant source of biodiversity. In fact, their study found that in our gardens there are nearly as many plant species as the total number of native species of flora of the British Islesthat is not just plant species imported from elsewhere, but genuinely native plant species. Back gardens are an important lifeline for the diversity of our ecology.
	There is also the issue of the security of back garden land, and developers breaking into it and putting up flats undoubtedly undermines that. In my borough, between 1994 and 2004, an average of 46 new dwellings per hectare were built. That has significantly increased the number and density of homes in my constituency, and put pressure on local infrastructure. At a time when Sutton and East Surrey Water has obtained a drought order, the impact of all that increased development on water supplies cannot be overestimated.
	That is only one of a catalogue of problems caused by such overdevelopment. There are more cars on the road, more people trying to use local schools and health services, and a gradual decline in the architectural heritage of the area. Those are all problems springing directly from the designation of back gardens as brownfield sites. A planning system that fails to strike a proper balance between conservation and change is not fit for purpose. As a result, it is losing public support in my constituency.
	However, help is at hand, in the form of the private Member's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), the Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I hope that the Government will still find time in this Session to provide the protection that the Bill would give to back garden land by returning the designation to what it should benot brownfield but greenfield land.
	My final contribution to the debate is about my concern for one of the valuable and well-regarded voluntary organisations in my constituency, which is losing some much needed funding. For four and a half years Age Concern in Sutton has run a hospital discharge scheme to support those leaving hospital. The scheme is aimed at people returning from hospital who are judged not to require personal care, and who are therefore not covered by social services care packages.
	The principal issue is eligibility, and how different authorities draw up eligibility criteria. The scheme co-ordinators visit the home of an individual leaving hospital to assess any financial, nutritional or safety needs, and take steps to ensure that those are met. Volunteers from the scheme then make weekly visits to the home of the discharged patients, helping with shopping, financial affairs and cleaning. Without this service, those people would have no support once they had left their hospital beds.
	Until recently the scheme was funded by a pooled arrangement between the Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust, the London borough of Sutton social services department, and the Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. However, earlier this yearI think this is driven by financial pressuresthe Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust began to question the value of the scheme, despite the clear support of patients who had benefited directly from it and health care professionals working for the trust.

Sarah Teather: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the pressure on primary care trusts to fund only core NHS matters, so as to meet financial targets, often runs counter to the Government's objective of linking health and social care? For example, in Brent the PCT has had to cut the money provided to Brent citizens advice bureau, which provides an outreach service at GPs' surgeries to try to prevent extended consultations there, and it is also cutting grants to organisations funding carers' activity, which may be counterproductive in terms of the long-term aims, and not cost-effective.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which many hon. Members in the Chamber today will probably want to make, about the impact of budgetary pressures in the NHS leading to false economies and short-sighted decisions that result in a reduction in services, which will store up further costs for the NHS and lead to poor services being experienced by many of our constituents.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a phenomenon that is likely to display itself in the course of the debate. Is he awarehe certainly will be when I have finished my interventionthat the Vale of Aylesbury primary care trust is, disgracefully, saying that it is closed to new entrants if they are children with speech and language disorders? Is this not a classic case of a conflict between the Government insisting on the merits of early intervention, and the cost cutters preparing to damage, perhaps irrevocably, the life chances of vulnerable children, in the name of penny-pinching?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and I look forward to hearing him expound on those points in greater detail if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), too, will have the opportunity to detail the consequences for constituents of the difficult financial circumstances that many NHS organisations are grappling with.
	My point is about a voluntary organisation that is doing extremely good work, but which has been notified that its funding will be withdrawn in the course of this year. Without that organisation in place, hundreds of vulnerable people will leave hospital with no support, which will in turn increase pressure on hospital beds, because those people will not be able to leave hospital as promptly as the NHS increasingly wishes them to.
	There will also be an increase in emergency readmissions as a direct consequence. People who have been inappropriately and too hastily discharged will end up having to go back into hospital because their home was unsafe or ill suited, or because they were unable to get out to get the necessary food to provide themselves with a decent meal during their recovery and convalescence. All those matters will increase the direct cost to the NHS, which is why that decision by the local NHS is a false economy. It is a short-sighted approach, and it will lead to long-term costs and consequences.
	Adjournment debates such as this are an opportunity for all hon. Members to bring their constituents' concerns to the House. Those are just three of mine, although I have many others that I would have welcomed the opportunity to air today. I end simply by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a good summer recess, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

Mike Hall: In the time allotted I hope to raise four issues that are constituency based but have implications for national legislation.
	The first case is tragic. In the last two years, two baby girls living in adjoining properties in my constituency have died of acute myeloid leukaemia. We have tried to understand the epidemiology of that cancer, which is rare in young girls, and it has been established that the houses in which they lived were built on a landfill site. There is clear evidence that methane has seeped out from that site and there may also have been traces of benzene, which is a very dangerous chemical.
	I suggested to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that it would be a good idea for tenants considering properties that have been built on landfill sites, reclaimed land or brownfield sites, to be told the history of the land so that they can make an informed choice about whether to take on the tenancies. So far the Government have declined to take that up, but I want to press the Minister on it today, because it is a good suggestion, which would allow prospective tenants the opportunity to make decisions about where they live in the knowledge of the conditions in which their properties have been built. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot deal with that matter when he replies, I should be grateful if he passed it on to the appropriate Department.
	The second issue that I want to raise concerns wheel clamping. Last year, a constituent of mine in Northwich had his vehicle clamped, he thought illegally. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 placed regulatory controls over wheel clamping companies and the Security Industry Authority implements the regulations. I was advised that for a vehicle to be legally clamped, the owner had to be issued with a receipt bearing the name and signature of the operative, the date and location of the clamping episode, and the registration number of the person doing the clamping. If the receipt does not contain the registration number of a clamping operative, the clamping is illegal and the owner of the vehicle can insist on the clamp being removed.
	I was able to prove to the SIA that the receipt that my constituent received did not bear the location, the clamper's name or the operative's number. I asked for that to be investigated and the SIA said that it would do so, but would not be able to tell me the outcome. When I queried that, it said that to do so would prejudice its investigation. So I asked it to carry out its investigation and tell me what it had done afterwards. It then wrote back and said that it did not deal with individual complaints. I then asked whether the receipt was valid, and after an extensive correspondence I was able to confirm that the receipt was invalid. But the SIA does not have the authority to intervene in individual cases, such as that of my constituent. Individuals need to know what is legal when a vehicle is clamped and whom to complain to if they think that that has been done illegally by an unregistered clamping organisation, such as North West Clamping, the company in this case.
	The third issue that I raise is another serious matter. On 21 December 1994, a constituent of mine, Stephen Cuddy, was murdered in Liverpool city centre by a man who was seriously mentally ill. That person went to prison for manslaughter. On behalf of my constituent Mrs. Cuddy, the mother of the deceased, I have been trying to establish what happened to the person who killed her son. I have established that the man who killed her son was remanded at Kettering magistrates court to Woodhill prison. He appeared in the magistrates court on a number of other occasions, but was released on 21 November 1994. I am trying to establish why that individual appeared in court and what conditions were placed on his release. The clerk to Northamptonshire magistrates courts has told me that I need the authority of either a justice of the peace or the Lord Chancellor to look at the court register, and it must also be established whether I am a fit and proper person to apply for that information.
	The most important test on the release of information is whether it relates to an ongoing case. However, I am not discussing an ongoing case, because the manslaughter of Mr. Cuddy has been dealt with by the courts. It is important that Members of Parliament and members of the general public have access to such information, because it is on the public record and was in the public domain when that person appeared in the magistrates court in 1994. I find it inconceivable that anyone would refuse a request from a Member of Parliament to obtain such information. Through the auspices of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, I want to press the Lord Chancellor, because if the rules prevent hon. Members from accessing court records on matters that have been dealt with in open court, then they need to be changed.
	Fourthly, on a much more positive note, my constituency contains Daresbury laboratory, which is currently devising a new piece of experimental kit. That is probably an understatement, because the laboratory is a world-leading research facility, which will take on the next generation of synchrotron radiation research. The massive piece of kit, which is only a prototype, accelerates electrons as close as possible to the speed of light, and the electrons are then peeled off in straight lines to X-ray materials in real time. That is the lay person's view, although I think that the matter is far more complicated than that. The prototype has been built at Daresbury, and we are looking forward to a decision stating that the project is desirable because it will take British science forward, that the money will be made available and that the project will take place at Daresbury laboratory. My hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I have met Lord Sainsbury to press the case. We hope that this time the decision recognises the world-leading facilities and research at Daresbury laboratory, which is valuable in terms of not only pure science, but intellectual property, patents and other associated matters.
	I want to use the final 40 seconds of my speech to pay tribute to my close personal friend, Kevin Hughes, who died last week from motor neurone disease and who was the former hon. Member for Doncaster, North. He was a fabulous friend and great company. He was also an extremely good Whip and had a very good sense of humour, which he kept until the end. When I saw him recently, I said, Kevin, I see that you are still smoking. He said, Mike, lung cancer would be a blessing. We will miss him greatlyhis funeral is tomorrow. I am pleased that I have been able to put my tribute in  Hansard to Kevin Hughes, who was a thoroughly decent guy.

David Maclean: Before we rise for the summer recess, I want to say a few words about the ongoing situation in Cumbria.
	I want to discuss the dire plight of dairy farmers not only in Cumbria, but across the United Kingdom. In July 2005, a report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed not only that more dairy farms ceased production between April 2003 and April 2005 than had intended to do so in 2003the increase was 12.4 per cent.but that the closures were concentrated among the larger herds and the bigger, more profitable dairy farms. If the most efficient dairy farmers are quitting the business in droves, it shows that things are not right in the dairy industry. More than 10 dairy farms have gone out of business in every week in the past two years. There are now more DEFRA staff than there are dairy farms in England, although DEFRA has still been unable to get the single farm payment out in anything like a respectable time.
	This is my key point to the Deputy Leader of the House, who used to be the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. If all our farmers were to get togetherthey cannot do this, because they are philosophically incapable of working togetherand said, Let's sell our milk at 20p a litre, the Office of Fair Trading would crucify them. When I checked the internet last week, however, Asda was selling milk at 55p a litre, Sainsbury's was, by coincidence, selling milk at 55p a litre, Tesco was selling milk at 55p a litre and Marks and Spencer was selling milk at 55p a litre. That is a cartel. For the OFT to say that there is no evidence of collusion is simplistic. Of course they do not need to colludeone cuts the price, the others look on the website and they all follow. It is a cartel, it is ruthless, it is grubby, and it needs to be stopped. Farmers are selling milk at 14p a litre or, if they are lucky, 15p, 16p or 17p a litre. Someone in the middle is making a huge profit. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee discovered that 18p a litre is going missing somewhere. It has to be looked at and it has to change.
	Our economic situation in Cumbria is not good, and I make no apologies for returning to that subject. Economic growth in Cumbria is the slowest of any area in the UK and, indeed, in the whole EU. In those circumstances, we must have EU funding coupled with designation as an assisted area for regional aid purposes. The economy in Cumbria is now as dire as Liverpool's was when the Government brought in massive intervention to help that city, and rightly so. The Government recently issued a consultation on the content of the national strategic reference framework. I understand that that document will set the priorities of financial allocation for the 2007-2013 structural funds programme. It is vital that it pay proper attention to the needs of areas with low and declining GVAgross value addedsuch as Cumbria. It is also vital that when the final draft is published Cumbria should receive a dedicated top slice of the national allocation of regional competitiveness funds. That would not be a precedent for any other county or region of the United Kingdom because no other part of the UK, from the highlands of Scotland to Cornwall to Liverpool, is in as dire a situation as Cumbria.
	I hope that the Government can find some sort of special programme for areas such as Cumbria or an increased regional allocation designed to offset the impact of economic decline in such areas. At the same time, we need assisted area designation to allow us to use public funds to invest in the private enterprise that is so vital. I understand that a national consultation is under way on assisted areas, and I say again that the designation must take into account those parts of the UK with low and declining GVA. No other part of the whole of the UK is as poorly off in terms of GVA as we are in Cumbria; in fact, only five other areas in the whole of Europe are as poorly off. We have great economic need that must be targeted. Unless we get that assistance, it will be impossible to arrest the decline in the Cumbrian economy even if our nuclear industry at Sellafield is boosted rather than run down.
	Two weeks ago, I got together with all the Conservative group leaders of councils in Cumbria, those that we control and those that we do not. We issued a statement saying that we, as the Conservative representatives for Cumbria, commend Sellafield as a centre for excellence and research and believe that in order to sustain our economy, support local businesses and preserve local employment, we need a new generation of nuclear power stations and cannot allow the reprocessing facility at Sellafield to be decommissioned. We called on the Government to invest in Sellafield and Cumbria's economy to dispose of all nuclear waste instead of exporting our waste to be processed abroad, which would export local jobs. We said that we are pleased that in 2004 3.1 per cent. of the UK's electricity supply came from renewable energy, but noted that the Government are highly unlikely to meet their target of 10 per cent. of electricity produced from renewables by 2010. We said that while we believe that renewable energy has an important part to play in our future energy mix, especially biofuels, of which we should produce a lot more, renewable energy will not be able to meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future. We concluded by saying that in the interests of the people of Cumbria and of England, we call on the Government fully to support nuclear power to ensure that more investment of all kinds is directed to Cumbria.
	Let me say a few words about the continuing saga of our community hospitals. The whole thrust of the recent White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services, is to shift care more into community settings and to boost the role of community hospitals. The Government say that 750 million will be available for capital expenditure to develop care in the community. I want specific assurances on the community hospitals that we already have in Cumbria. In particular, I want assurances on some aspects of paragraph 6 of the White Paper. Do the Government accept that there are now no circumstances in which any of our community hospitals should lose their intermediate care beds? In paragraph 6.31 of the White Paper, the Government express the wish that
	we want there to be an overall shift of resources from hospitals to care in the community settings.
	What will they do to carry it out? What will they do to compel all the hospital trusts to follow the White Paper demands that
	we should see spending on primary and community care begin to grow faster than spending on acute hospitals?
	Paragraphs 6.38 and 6.39 of the White Paper state among other things that
	we will over the next five years develop a new generation of modern NHS community hospitals.
	Paragraph 6.39 sets out the facilities that they should have. Do the Government accept that, in Cumbria, we already have community hospitals, which have 80 to 90 per cent. of what the Government want, according to the White Paper? All the Government have to do is give the community hospitals the funding to continue to meet their day-to-day running costs. Those facilities should not be downgraded because their running costs are not fully met. Without that assurance from the Government, the next paragraph is worthless.
	Paragraph 6.42 states:
	However we are clear that community facilities should not be lost in response to short term budgetary pressures that are not related to the viability of the community facility itself.
	My concern about the plan is that the Government have 750 million and that they will spend it on new hospitals in the cities. The rural areas have the hospitals but we will not get money to run them. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure me that that is not the case.

Joan Ruddock: Tempted though I am to try to counter the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) about nuclear energy, I want to consider another matter.
	Last Friday,  The Independent printed one of its iconic front pages. On the left were the flags of 189 countries that supported the United Nations call for a ceasefire in the middle east and on the right was a large white space with only three dots of colourIsrael, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. That is not where I want my country to beisolated, tied to a US Administration run by neocons and headed by a religious zealot.
	I have no quarrel with the American or Israeli people but I do not share their leaders' views of the world and I know that my constituents do not, as they frequently tell me. We must have a good working relationship with the US, as other European countries do. However, it is time to acknowledge the contradictions between fulfilling our wider international goals and responsibilities and trying to stay on side with George Bush.
	In so many ways, the Government have been a beacon of progressive thinking. We have a proud record in peacekeeping and democracy-building. We have been generous in response to disasters. We have worked hard to make the World Bank more accountable and we have done much to bring about reform of the United Nations. We have led the world on climate change, debt relief and poverty alleviation. We even pushed the EU into adopting better terms for the development round of the World Trade Organisation talks.
	All those and more are great British initiativesBritish policies of which we are justly proud. However, are they reflected in the special relationship? They are not. The Kyoto treaty was concluded on terms that were believed to suit the Americans but they steadfastly refused to adopt it. They have consistently undermined the UN, and this week they collapsed the WTO talks.
	We have failed to make the special relationship work for us. It might not matter so much if we had not paid such a high price in supporting the United States military action in Iraq. In doing that, we began the separation from the world community that has become so stark in recent days.
	Let me be clear. I am no pacifist and I had no problems with military action in Afghanistan. Defeating the Taliban and rooting out al-Qaeda was in everyone's interest. If it were not for the folly of Iraq, I believe that we would have made greater progress in that tragic country. Instead we have exacerbated the conditions in which terrorism flourishes. We all know that it is impossible to end terrorism in the middle east if there is no justice for the Palestinians. Only the US has the power to bring about that solution. Perhaps if we had joined the rest of the world last week in condemning Israel's disproportionate use of force, an isolated US might have taken action sooner. There are few tragedies as sad as Lebanon's. After years of civil war, Lebanon had achieved a fledgling democracy, and elected government and an infrastructure largely rebuilt by international funds. It now lies in ruins, and support for Hezbollah, which is responsible for recklessly starting this conflict, has probably increased. This ought to give us cause to reflect on our role in the world, and particularly on our contribution to fighting terrorism and its causes.
	In a single decade, our world has changed so rapidly and violently that we need a completely new approach. As I said at the beginning of my speech, our Government have led so much of the progressive agenda. So often, however, we adopt contradictory positions. The recently announced proposal to replace Trident represents just such a contradiction. The UK has worked really hard to keep the non-proliferation treaty alive and to find a diplomatic route to containing Iran's nuclear ambitions. In Trident, we have maintained an awesome nuclear capability, but we have made it clear that, following the end of the cold war, the weapons are no longer targeted.
	The non-proliferation treaty was designed to outlaw nuclear weapons, not to endorse them. Without any progress on nuclear disarmament, there can be no intellectual or moral argument against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any other state. Someone has to break this logjam, and Britain is well placed to do that by forgoing a replacement for Trident.
	The deterrence theory that underpins our continued possession of nuclear weapons has long been found wanting. Those weapons did not deter Argentina in the Falklands, or today's terrorist attacks on Israel. Neither has their mutual possession deterred war between India and Pakistan. On the contrary, all talk in the US now is of bunker-busting nukes and weapons designed not to deter but to fight and wage war. How can we possibly justify spending 20 billion on a weapons system for which we cannot even define a use? Our global enemies are failed states, terrorism, climate change, and the poverty and religious divides that fuel conflict. Nuclear weapons can play no part in meeting such challenges.
	An Adjournment debate at the end of a difficult Session such as this is a good place to ask what kind of country we want to be. Robin Cook, writing in  The Guardian in 2004, said that
	the political values and global priorities of the US and Europe are diverging rather than converging. Clinging to an outdated special relationship is to stay in denial of that uncomfortable truth.
	How we miss Robin Cook!
	In this country, we have an extraordinary wealth of talent, entrepreneurship, rights and freedoms. We have a great history, and the greatest riches in our arts and cultural life. We have the most diverse capital city in the world. This is why we won the Olympic bid. It is time to choose not to be a country defined by its special relationship and its nuclear weapons, but to be one whose international status rests on an intellectual and moral authority exercised within the rule of law.

John Stanley: I, too, wish to refer to the community hospitals in my constituency: Tonbridge hospital and Edenbridge hospital. The two hospitals have a similar past and, sadly, a similar present. Both were founded after the first world war as a result of private benefactions and donations and taken into the national health service under the National Health Service Act 1946. Since then, they have both attracted huge amounts of additional financial support from the private sector, running to hundreds of thousands of pounds from private donations and the wonderful activities of their leagues of friends. Both hospitals provide outstanding nursing care and levels of treatment. And yet both hospitals, under the orders of the South West Kent primary care trust, have half their beds taken out of use. The future of both hospitals is at present clouded in uncertainty.
	That situation arises not because of any local failure by the South West Kent primary care trust, but because of a disastrous decision taken by the Secretary of State. We face not a local, individual, constituency crisis for community hospitals, but a national one. If ever there were a clear demonstration of that, it was in this House on 28 March, when, I understand, there was the largest ever simultaneous presentation of petitions by 21 right hon. and hon. Members, involving 45 separate community hospitals the length and breadth of the country, from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) down to Kent and the east and west. It is a national crisis, which has been occasioned by the Secretary of State.
	The Secretary of State took, in my view, a reckless decision to give absolute priority to one single political targetachieving the 18-week waiting time for acute hospitals, regardless of the consequences elsewhere. To achieve that, she introduced Payment by Results, the new acute hospitals tariff, on 1 April 2005. The desirable consequence of that was a great deal of additional activity in acute hospitals, with waiting times coming down. Regrettably, however, the Secretary of State failed to accompany an improved tariff for acute hospitals with proper revenue arrangements for community hospitals. As a consequence, a significant switch of resources away from community hospitals to the acute sector has taken place.
	In my constituency, the South West Kent primary care trust estimates that the consequence of the Secretary of State's introduction of Payment by Results for the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Acute Hospitals Trust is a transfer of approximately 2 billion a year from the community sector to the acute sector. Predictably, primary care trusts across the country have gone from the black into the red. By virtue of being in deficit, their community hospitals are under threat. The Secretary of State's announcement of the 750 million of capital will not improve the situation at all. It is capital that will be hard-contested by all Members with community hospitals in their constituencies. The first bids, for the first tranche of 150 million, go in by 30 September, and I suspect that the total bids will be way in excess of that figure. That does not deal with the revenue crisis facing community hospitals.
	There are only two routes to solving that crisis. Either the Secretary of State must introduce a proper tariff for community hospitals, or she must extend Payment by Results to cover the community hospital sector. Sadly, it seems that she is setting her face against both of those obvious solutions. The written answer that I received from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), on 17 July, stated:
	We will set out shortly plans for the national tariff in 2007-08 but we have never said there will be a community hospital tariff.[ Official Report, 17 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 245W.]
	Therefore, the community hospital tariff seems to be off the Government's agenda.
	As for extending Payment by Results to the community hospital sector, the Secretary of State said in her letter to me last week, dated 18 July:
	For services outside the scope of PbR (such as community services) funding should be negotiated locally.
	What an answer that is! Why should the community hospitals and PCTs be the Oliver Twists of the national health service, reduced to going out begging local providers for income so that they can return their beds to use? The situation is grossly unfair and unreasonable.
	I put it to the Minister, and through him to the Secretary of State, that the position of community hospitals throughout the country is unacceptable. My two hospitals in Tonbridge and Edenbridge ask reasonably and justifiably, with my full support, why 80 years of private donation, effort, fundraising and excellent community care should risk being swept away by the bulldozer as a result of the Secretary of State's mismanagement of NHS finances. That is the central question.
	I say to the Minister that the Secretary of State must address the revenue issues. She must provide an assured source of revenue for the community sector, as for the acute hospital sector. Until that happens, there will not be the assured future for community hospitals in this country that, in Edenbridge and Tonbridge and up and down the country, they deserve and need.

Iain Wright: I want to use this opportunity to talk about how my constituency of Hartlepool is looking forward with ambition to the 21st century by learning from the experience of the town's economic growth in the 19th century.
	This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the man who is universally seen as the founder of west Hartlepool, Ralph Ward Jackson. It was Ward Jackson arguably more than any other individual who had a vision and saw the potential of an underdeveloped area. He also, in 1868, became the town's first Member of Parliament. Ward Jackson primary school has been undertaking research on his life this year. That included a visit to the House, and I pay tribute to the school's hard work.
	The school found that Ward Jackson was not a regular parliamentary attender. Indeed, the only contribution that he appears to have made is a vehement objection to the publishing of parliamentary proceedings. But although not a strong parliamentarian, he had a strong vision for the town. In a letter to  The Times in September 1863, he described the scene on the land between old Hartlepool and Seaton Carew. He wrote:
	West Hartlepool, with its fine harbour, docks, warehouses and town, situated on the west shore of Hartlepool Bay was, in 1844, an open beach, skirted by sandhills, and behind the desert ridge was an open agricultural country. A solitary farmhouse and a windmill were the only indications of human life and industry that marked the spot. In 1844 there were no works of any kind, no capital, no shipping, no commerce.
	Following a slow and gradual decline in the fortunes of the area in the 18th century, the nobility and gentry of the north of England stayed for the summer months in what Robert Wood, in his history of west Hartlepool, described as
	the romantic old town of Hartlepool and the smart seaside resort of Seaton Carew.
	But there was very little enterprise, industry or ambition.
	Ward Jackson saw that if he was able to transport coal from the Durham mines to the London markets faster and more cheaply than the relatively new Stockton to Darlington railway, he could make a fortune. He believed that that was possible through the geographical advantage that the Hartlepool coastline gave him: a quick turnaround of ships in the docks made west Hartlepool the most competitive port in the region. As well as coal, nearby iron ore from the Cleveland hills was soon transported via the new Hartlepool port. Shipbuilding yards, engineering plants and other associated businesses were soon set up.
	The economic and industrial growth of the town was phenomenal. Within 20 years, west Hartlepool had grown to be the fourth largest port in the United Kingdom for foreign merchandise exports, just behind Liverpool, London and Hull. By the outbreak of the first world war, one eighteenth of the British shipping fleet, in terms of tonnage, had been launched from or was owned by Hartlepool yards. That was at a time when the British fleet was bigger than the rest of the world's fleets put together. How on earth was it done? I think that the best analysis comes from Ward Jackson himself. In his 1863 letter to  The Times, he wrote:
	It being obvious that, in a totally new creation such as west Hartlepool is, success would best and most surely be realised by making the harbour and docks and every requisite arrangement for shipping and commercial enterprise as comprehensive and perfect as practicable, and in the shortest time.
	I am a lover of history and I believe that the study of the past can teach us some pertinent lessons for the future. For much of the 20th century, Hartlepool has been in decline. The traditional industries that Ward Jackson helped to introduce have become obsolete and Hartlepool has spent the last few decades coming to terms with the social and economic repercussions of that decline. We are still dealing with low productivity and economic inactivity and levels of enterprise and innovation that are too low.
	Given the challenges and opportunities of the new century, however, I believe that my town can have as bright a future as the one that faced my Victorian predecessors. That will be achieved by embracing Ward Jackson's principle of providing a comprehensive, professional and positive environment in which to start and grow businesses, promote skills and improve the quality of life.
	The world economy is forecast to grow by about 80 per cent. by 2020. Globalisationthe interconnectivity and free movement of trade, people, capital and informationwill occur at a faster rate than ever before. The greatest benefits of globalisation will accrue to those cities, regions and countries that can access and adopt new technologies. The manner in which those technologies can be integrated and applied will be crucial to a region's prospects for prosperity.
	Globalisation means that people, particularly those with the highest skills, will be wanted throughout the world and, given the ease of technology and communication, can be located anywhere in the world. The challenge for cities and regions will be to ensure that the infrastructure and environment of their particular areatheir sense of placeare conducive to creating a modern, creative, diverse and innovative place to live, work, raise children and relax, so that talented and ambitious workers will be attracted and will wish to stay.
	The expanding global economy will, quite literally, fuel an unprecedented demand for raw materials, particularly energy. It is estimated that total energy demand will rise by about 50 per cent. in the years to 2020, compared with 34 per cent. for the period 1980 to 2000. Growing demand from China, India and Brazil, in addition to continuing demand from the US and in conjunction with increasing political volatility in the middle east, will help to keep oil prices high. Pressure is rightly growing to use more renewable sources of energy, so these trends will also mean that regions that help to capture and refine the energy will become increasingly important.
	Hartlepool and the wider Tees valley will play a large part in the world's modern energy sector. There is the rise of biofuels and the hydrogen economy being developed at Seal Sands, and oil and gas-related activities provided by Heerema Hartlepool, which include project design, engineering, construction and commissioning of offshore oil and gas installations. Heerema has just completed the Buzzard project for Nexen Petroleum and has embarked on its next project, the construction of a Britannia satellite platform. My constituency also has Corus pipe mills, a truly global and first-class firm providing the highest quality products made in Hartlepool to assist in the extraction and distribution of energy throughout the world. I have no doubt that by 2020 Hartlepool will be synonymous globally with energy production excellence.
	I mentioned that in the period before Ward Jackson and the emerging manufacturing industry, Hartlepool was becoming something of a tourist attraction and I think that in the 21st century we can have both: we can have a modern manufacturing industrial sector, providing high-value jobs, coupled with a reputation for being an excellent tourist destination. Our coastline is breathtaking, our marine facilities are world class and the recent decision on a direct rail link between London and Hartlepool will provide a fresh boost to the town's economy.
	In the last month or so, the town has been awarded the tall ships event for 2010. That is on a par for my town with Liverpool's being city of culture for 2008 and London's winning of the Olympics for 2012. Credit must be given to Hartlepool borough council's economic development team, which worked hard to get the tall ships to Hartlepool. The challenge, as with Liverpool and London, is to ensure that the event provides a legacy that will embed Hartlepool's reputation for quality, professionalism and friendliness.
	Ralph Ward Jackson saw the economic and commercial benefits that could be realised from Hartlepool's distinct physical features. He established a modern infrastructure that was conducive to enterprise, to starting and growing a business and to attracting and retaining highly skilled workers. He, more than most, was acutely aware of the importance of that sense of place. In the 21st century, Hartlepool needs to adopt its founder's model again.

Angela Browning: I should like to draw attention this afternoon to the way in which public sector contracts are written, implemented and managed and their impact on my constituents. Whether we are dealing with a service contractfor example, for hospital ward cleaningor a procurement contract for something such as military helicopters, if the contracts are not drawn up, monitored and implemented properly, it has a huge impact on the services or goods that are ultimately provided.
	In the past few weeks, I have to deal with the contracts drawn up by the NHS as part of the change in the way that people in the community are provided with oxygen cylinders. Previously, oxygen cylinders were provided through pharmacies and GP practices, usually at 24 hours' notice. Many people of all ages rely on those cylinders at home. However, the Government have decided to cut out the middle man, and Air Products Ltd now has the contract, under which it was meant to provide the cylinders, guaranteeing delivery at three days' notice; but that is not happening and the impact on some very seriously ill people and their carers is quite profound.
	For example, I know of a two-and-a-half-year-old with a very serious heart condition who needs 24-hour coverage with oxygen cylinders. The parents became quite desperate because they could not get access to a delivery within three days. Equally, I know of cases of elderly people who have not been able to get hold of cylinders in time and were frequently promised, day after day, that they would get them on a certain day, including at weekends, but they did not come.
	I have been in touch with Air Products. I should have thought that, if the Government wanted to change the system from pharmacies and GP practices supplying the cylinders, they would have got all their ducks in a row and the contract would have been put in place and seen to be working before they made the switch, but that is not the case. One of my constituents was told by the head of the medicines, pharmacy and industry business unitwhatever that isat the Department of Health:
	you are experiencing
	problems
	with delivery of oxygen supplies for your wife and I appreciate that you will want to be sure of a reliable service. Understandably, patients and clinicians are concerned about these service problems.
	When I looked into this, I found all sorts of problems. Cylinders are still with pharmacies. There are problems with people stockpiling things because they are in short supply, which, in itself, creates a shortage. There are also problems with people answering the phones at Air Products Ltd, and I was told that those problems are caused by the fact that so many people are ringing the company that it is having to train staff, who are not yet trained, and until they are trained, they cannot answer the phone in a timely way. I put that to the test to find out how long it took my office to get someone to answer the phone, and it took nearly 15 minutes.
	We see those problems right across the public sector. I am also concerned not just about the Government's management of that contract, but about the change in Devon to adult services, particularly those for the elderly and people with learning disabilities. The contracts are about to be turned over to the people who supply the services. I asked the question, Please will you get the services in place before you make the change? However, throughout the public sector, there seems to be a lack of skill and understanding about the commissioning and negotiation of contracts and about how to make sure that, if a supplier does not fulfil a contract, the sort of things that should be written into the contract are implemented to ensure that the goods and services are delivered on time. It seems prevalent across the public sector that people are let down and that people who seriously need goods and services, such as my constituents, are put in such a position purely because the public sector does not seem to understand procurement or how to write a proper public service contract.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the reasons why stoma patients are so concerned about the future of their services? They have a perfectly good service at the moment, but it appears to be undergoing the same transformation as has happened to the oxygen service.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend is right, and anyone who has ever been involved in procurement or writing service contracts, whether in the public or the private sector, knows that there are some pretty rudimentary rules to follow in getting things in place before making any change. To leave it and see what happens and then decide to train people and change the contract is a back-to-front way of going about this.
	I wish to raise another matter. At the beginning of the Iraq war, many Members started receiving representations from constituents whose relatives were serving in the armed forces. The then Secretary of State said that it was the wrong time and place to make complaints and draw to public attention concerns about the equipment provided to our armed services. I know that there are wars going on around the worldand I must say in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that although I do not agree with the views that were expressed on Trident, I do agree with the analysis of the situation in Lebanon and the middle eastbut what I am about to say must be said.
	Many of my constituents who have close relatives serving in the armed forces are genuinely worried not only about overstretch and various other issues that we have recently aired in this Chamber, but about the fact that people serving in the armed forces are increasingly having to buy privately basic pieces of kit and equipment that, frankly, should be provided, and the fact that, in respect of kit procured by the Ministry of Defence, it should be procured in keeping with a set of benchmarks and standards that we would expect to be met.
	We have increasing numbers of such debates in this House. Our armed forces serve in new theatres of war around the globe, and it is incumbent upon usas a nation and as a Parliamentto know about these matters and to be able to reassure relatives, some of whose families have given generations of service to the armed forces, so they know what the implications of service are, that the kit is the best that we can possibly afford and that it is reliable. However, I have grave reservations in respect of both small personal kit and some of the larger procurement contracts that the MOD negotiates.
	I was reminded of that at the weekend. There is a family in my constituency whose son is serving in the armed forces. That family has a long history of serving this country. I felt that if such a family express concern about the provision for their son, we in this place should take such comments very seriously indeed. The issue is not only about the practicalities of the way in which contracts are negotiated; it is also about knowing, when we ask people in our armed forces to carry out their duties, that from the centrewhichever party is in powerwe enable them, through their equipment, to maximise their protection and their confidence in the job that we ask them to do.
	That links in with my theme today, which is that public sector contracts should be negotiated in a correct and proper manner, and that that should be implemented not only in respect of the public sector contracts that I have mentioned such as those to do with oxygen cylinders, but particularly in terms of the services and goods that are provided to those serving in our armed forces.

Michael Wills: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), whom I congratulate on raising with characteristic eloquence the case involving Air Products. I, too, have constituents who have suffered as a result of that company, although I must say that I was somewhat surprised that she seemed more inclined to blame for the shambles the Government's procurement policies than the company itself, where the responsibility must surely primarily lie.
	On past occasions when I have been fortunate enough to be able to speak in debates such as this, I have tended to use the opportunity to urge Swindon borough council to make much needed improvements in their performance, but on this occasion I want to start differentlyI want to celebrate something. This year is the 200th anniversary of the birth not only Ralph Ward Jackson of Hartlepool, but of the founder of modern Swindon, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. In 1840, his 21-year-old lieutenant, Daniel Gooch, wrote to him recommending the small hilltop market town of Swindon as the site for the Great Western Railway's new engine works, saying:
	The only objection I see to Swindon is the bad supply of water.
	I must say that those of my constituents who have recently sufferedand those who have suffered for many yearsfrom the neglect of Thames Water and the regular flooding of their homes with sewage because that utility company will not make the necessary investment to prevent that from happeningdespite making 350 million in profit last yearmight well take the view that not much has changed in Swindon since 1840.
	For more than 100 years, the railway works flourished under the stewardship of great engineers such as Churchward, Collett and Hawksworth, whose names live on not just in Swindon street names, but in a tradition of engineering excellence and innovation. Those who visit the steam museum in SwindonI recommend that all Members of this House and every member of the public visit this fascinating and excellent world-class museumcan see this tradition exemplified in a display board of carriage-door locks. It shows that those engineers were never content and were constantly refining and improving their production, driven, above all, by pride in their craft. That is a lesson for successful businesses everywhere.
	Pride, excellence and innovation still underpin manufacturing in Swindon. This is still a town built more than most on manufacturingon Honda and all the other world-class manufacturing businesses located in the town. It is a town that knows better than most that manufacturing mattersin its own right, and for all the benefits that it brings to the economy as a whole.
	Brunel was, in the words of his biographer, Tom Rolt,
	the archetype of the heroic age of the engineer.
	However, no country can rely on the genius of individuals alone for the economy to thrive. The manufacturing on which Swindon and this country depends requires that the Government create the environment in which it can prosper.
	I want to spend the rest of the time allotted to me drawing attention to two areas on which it is very important that the Government continue to focus their attention, as I hope they will. In repairing the neglect of decades, the Department of Trade and Industry identified seven key conditions for creating the necessary infrastructure: macroeconomic stability; investment; the promulgation of best practices; the constant improving of skills and education levels; improving the transport and communications infrastructures; and creating the conditions for dynamic, open and transparent markets. They are all important, but I want to use this opportunity to focus attention on two particular areas.
	Science and innovation relates to the seventh key condition identified by the DTI, and the Government have given it unprecedented support. Since 1997, they have doubled the science budgetto more than 3 billionand given industry and scientists the confidence to plan long term for the future by setting out a 10-year framework for science and innovation investment.
	Today, I want to welcome the increasing emphasis on basic scienceacquiring understanding, as opposed to applied research for specific purposes. At a time of economic and technological change unprecedented in its speed and extent, it would be unwise to invest disproportionately in applied research that could become out of date in a few years. It is often better to invest in the fundamental understanding that can, and does, lead to extraordinary applications that are often completely impossible to conceive at the outset of research. In 1984, for example, Tim Berners-Lee took up a fellowship at CERN, the European organisation for nuclear research, and five years later he suggested a global hypertext project to enable the various existing national proprietary computer technologies housed within this multinational institution to communicate better with each other. This became the worldwide web, and was the basis of the internet revolution that now reaches into every area of our lives. That was completely impossible to foresee just a few years beforehand.
	The percentage of total Government research and development funding spent on basic research increased from 31.5 per cent. in 1997 to 39 per cent. in 2003, and it is vital that this focus continues. Enabling brilliance to shine is essential for prosperity, as our competitors understand. China is planning to double the proportion of its RD spending on basic science in the next decade. We cannot ever afford to fall behind.
	The second area to which I wish to draw attention is even more fundamental to scientific and technological achievement: a culture in which the command of mathematics is widespread. This is not the occasion on which to rehearse all the challenges that we face in achieving that aim. However, in 2004 Professor Adrian Smith, acting on a Government remit, reported to the Education Secretary that although mathematics
	provides the language and analytical tools underpinning much of our scientific and industrial research and development...we currently face a situation of long term decline in the numbers of young people continuing to study mathematics post-16.
	Professor Smith came up with far-reaching proposals to tackle the problem, and the Government are developing them. For example, in tackling the problem that too few of those teaching maths are adequately qualified, the Government are driving attempts to raise the percentage of lessons taught by those with a specialism in maths. Some 88 per cent. of those lessons today are delivered by such specialists and that figure should be 95 per cent. by 2014. Progress must continue. As we celebrate the bicentennial of the world's greatest engineerthe founder of Swindon, whose name is indelibly associated with the town that I have the honour to representwe must continue to ensure that we nourish an environment in which future Brunels can flourish.
	May I conclude my remarks by taking this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House a peaceful and creative recess?

Jacqui Lait: I shall follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) by raising several issues of concern before we rise for the summer recess. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not address issues of science, technology and mathematics, except perhaps as they apply to the terrible weaponry that is being used at the moment in the middle east. I do not envy those people who have to try to reach some solution to that extraordinarily complex problem.
	It is too simple to say that all we need is a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is a state within the state of Lebanon, which suggests that Lebanonlike so many other weak statesneeds the help of the world to gain strength to resist the existence of organisations such as Hezbollah. I was pleased to note that it was not just me being a conspiracy theorist, but that others think that Hezbollah's actions were purely a proxy for Iran and a way to distract the world's eyes from the offer by the US to discuss Iran's nuclear technology and capabilityan offer that Tehran probably did not expect to receive from the US. While the world's attention is distracted by the aggression between Hezbollah and Israel, Iran can get on with what it is trying to do with its nuclear capability. Those who will be involved in trying to sort out the problem for the long term have all my good wishes.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the deafening silence from the UN, which must eventually lead to a solution in the region, and does she accept the imperative of stopping the human rights abuses against civilians and children on both sides right now?

Jacqui Lait: The problem is much more intractable than my hon. Friend suggests, although I hope that those people who hope to make some sustainable arrangements will take his points into account.
	I also wish to raise a domestic terrorist issuethe animal rights terrorist movement. Unusually, I wish to congratulate the Government on what they have done to try to curb the activities of a few, very aggressive people. I was pleased that we were able to send down those appalling people who behaved so badly in the guinea pig farm case. I was pleased to note that the Companies Bill contains provisions to make it more difficult for such organisations, although they are unfortunately fairly shrewd and clever, to gain access to shareholders' names and addresses from the registers of companies. Wellcome used to be based in Beckenham, so I have a disproportionate number of constituents who hold shares in some pharmaceutical companies, and they have suffered not only from the latest outrage but from the phone calls at 4 am and the posters stuck on their gates and their neighbours' gates calling them murderers. That is not the sort of treatment that should be suffered by retired, older people.
	I urge the Minister to ensure that all the reorganisation in the Home Office does not cause the Government to take their eye off the ball. We have to maintain a high level of policing against animal terrorists, and make sure that the animal terrorist unit is able to continue its work. We must also use all possible legislative means to curb the terrorists' activities.
	The people who are involved in animal terrorism believe that direct action works, and they have set out to train a younger generation to continue an outrageous attack on one of this country's key industries. Everyone in this Chamber has benefited from its work, and I suspect that the same is true of the animal terrorists. If they are allowed to continue to take action against the industry, investors will make their decisions accordingly and facilities will close. That will happen quietly and graduallythere will be no announcement that it is due to the industry being targeted by the animal terrorists, but investors will decide that they can invest more profitably elsewhere. As a result, one of our leading industries will simply trickle away to countries that offer a more supportive environment.
	Finally, I turn to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The question of back gardens being treated as brownfield sites is of great importance to people in London's outer suburbs, and throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman gave various reasons why blocks of flats should no longer be built in back gardens, a problem that affects my constituency as much as his, but he slightly glossed over the way in which a suburb's character can change because of increased population density.
	People move to a new location as a positive choice. They come to my Beckenham constituency because they want its open spaces, large gardens and wide roads, with all the biodiversity that that implies. They want to bring up their children in leafy areas and they do not want to discover that they are faced with inner-city population densities.
	I raised this matter in a Westminster Hall debate, but the Minister who responded seemed to be proud that housing in the outer suburbs was approaching inner-city densities. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to look againand hardat the question of population density, and at the way in which the planning function is becoming increasingly centralised. That centralisation is evident in the proposed transfer of power to the London Mayor, and in the planning guidance announced in a written statement yesterday. That guidance, which is being consulted on, will make it much easier for central Government to dictate how many houses, and of what type, should go where.
	I have long believed that the people who know best what should happen in a locality are the ones who live there. They know that their children need houses, and that older people need different accommodation as they grow older and are no longer able to manage so easily. Local people should be able to decide that their environment will remain as they like it. It is not up to central Government to dictate what should happen.

Alison Seabeck: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise a very serious issue on behalf of one young man in my constituency, William Watrin Cattrall.
	William was born in England, at Derriford hospital, Plymouth, on 20 June 1996. His father is English, as are his grandparents, and he has lived nowhere other than the UK. William is a very keen and talented sportsman who would like nothing more than to represent his country, England. He swims and trains with Plymouth Leander swimming club, one of the most successful clubs in the country. Indeed, his ambition, like that of many other young people of his age, is to compete in the 2012 Olympics for the country that he regards as his.
	William is a lad like any other. He supports his local football team, Plymouth Argyle; he sees a career for himself in the Royal Navy; and he loves bacon and eggs. He is also forthright in his views and supports the campaign, highlighted in the local paper, to provide funding for the Earlybird project, which is carrying out work on diabetes and obesity. I will return to the Earlybird project later.
	However, unlike other boys of his age, William has no status in the UK. He appears to have fallen foul of legislation that has taken four years to implement and was designed to deal with circumstances such as his, where because his mother is not Britishshe has Dutch citizenshipand because his parents, like many others in this country, were not married at the time of his birth, he is not considered a British citizen. That has caused a number of complications for William, not least the fact that he cannot obtain a passport, despite registering as a minor, as suggested in a response I received from a Home Office Minister last year. That response paralleled guidance from the UK Passport Servicethat if the British-born child of a European economic area national is now refused citizenship, as happened in William's case, it is worth seeking advice and considering an application for registration in due course. William did all that, but it made no difference at all.
	William's mother was not exercising treaty rights at the time of her child's birth. She arrived in the UK in 1995 and felt no need to do so at the time. She was clearly unaware of the implications for her child when he was born a year later. The history of the legislation that affects William is that under section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a person born in the UK will be a British citizen at birth if either parent was then a British citizen or was settled in the UK. Section 50 (9) of the Act goes on to provide that, for that purpose, parent includes the mother, butcrucially in William's casenot the father of an illegitimate child.
	In most other areas of life the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children has been abandoned, but we continue to retain it for nationality legislation, although, to be fair, the position changed on 1 July this year when section 9 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 finally came into effectfour years after the passage of the Act. However, to the horror of William and his family, it was decided not to apply the provision retrospectively, so as we understand it he no longer has any right to obtain settlement. His mother cannot provide the evidence of her settlement in the UK that is required for the alternative route.
	The Cattrall family, and numerous other families in exactly the same position, want to know why the provision was not applied retrospectively. There were newspaper reports recently of the case of Leo Poole, the child of an Italian mother and a British father, born on 30 Junethe day before the provision came into force. There are similar examples from around the country.
	Through the Minister, I want to ask some questions. What were the reasons for the four-year delay? It surely cannot have been due to lack of availability of parliamentary time. We have found time for a great number of orders to be made since 2002. Why is the provision not being applied retrospectively? Is it the cost, or simply the inability of a hard-pressed Home Office to manage the number of possible cases? Do the Government know the number of people who fall outside the change and who, like William, will continue to fall outside our citizenship rules?
	For some time, William and his family have been pressing me to highlight his plight. His hope was that the change to the 1981 Act would make all the difference, but sadly the benefits of the 2002 Act will not apply to him. He is stateless and very unhappy. He simply wants to know whether the Government will, in due course, revisit the policy or offer further advice if we have misinterpreted the provision. We do not think that we have done so, but if we did I am sure that William would be delighted.
	I want to touch on the Earlybird project, which is being carried out by the Peninsula medical school in Plymouth and led by Professor Terry Wilkin, to research the links between childhood obesity and diabetescurrently at the top of our public health priorities. The project is unique and has received testimonials from around the world. The researchers have visited the House of Commons and given evidence to the Select Committee on Health.
	There is no other similar study at present and it would be catastrophic if this study, which has been going for six years, were stopped at this juncture because of a lack of funding. It is a 12-year study of 300 children across Plymouth, from a cross section of socio-economic backgrounds. For six years, the team has been testing the groupsince the members of that group were five years old. The data collected are already proving useful. Surely, if the Government want to ensure that NHS funding is effectively targeted to tackle obesity and the diabetes that follows, strong evidence-based research should be used.
	The future of this valuable project is at risk because 40,000 of NHS funding last year did not materialise. The Peninsula medical school is an excellent new facility, but because it is new it does not have the benefit of some of the longer-standing medical schools in terms of endowments, so it is not able to support the project, as it would certainly want to do. We are talking about a small team of medical researchers, not fundraisers. I have already written to the Minister to urge serious and urgent consideration of the research and development funding required for the project. I hope that, through him, a message will go back to the Department of Health about the importance and urgency of support for the Earlybird project.

Peter Robinson: I should like to touch on one subject in the period left before we rise for the summer recess: the way in which the Government recognise the gallantry, service and devotion of those who have served in Her Majesty's forcesin particular in regiments that have been stood down. I want to touch on the Ulster Defence Regiment, which grew into the Royal Irish Regiment, the home service battalions of which were stood down in recent days.
	First, I should say that I believe that the Government proposed a sensible package for the men who had been in the RIR, which was welcomed by many, although some people who served in the regiment ended up less well off than others and might not be as generous about the Government's role. However, by and large, it was a good package.
	I also welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the additional difficulties faced by Ministry of Defence staff in Northern Ireland, who are being made redundant. They will not be able to find a job on the high street in the way in which MOD staff can in Great Britain. At least 50 per cent. of employers will not touch them and it will probably be a much larger slice than that as soon as the employers hear about their previous employment. I welcome the increased offer that the Government have made to MOD staff; many of them will welcome that, as well. I also welcome the sensible step that the Government took to increase the bounty, from 10,000 to 20,000, for members of the RIR who transfer to other regiments and remain as soldiers in Her Majesty's forces.
	Having welcomed all those things, may I touch on some issues that I trust the Government will take on board? The Government are considering in what way the RIR and its personnel can be recognised. I know that, to some extent, the Army likes to keep a certain amount of control over the awarding of medals and I know that the Government will at least want to recognise the role of the regiment as a regiment. However, many of us in Northern Ireland believe that the individuals who have put their lives on the line should be recognised by the Government and that there should be a medal struck specifically for those who have served in the RIR. Although I hear some rumours in the MOD that it is looking at a regiment recognition, as opposed to a soldier recognition, I trust that the Government will look again at that important issue. It might not seem much to many outside the services, but for those who have served in the most horrible and dangerous of circumstances, it is due recognition for the contribution that they have made.
	For the Ulster Defence Regiment, a matter relating to the accumulated campaign service medal continues to be a sore. The medal is available to full timers who complete 1,080 operational duties, or part timers who complete 1,000 operational duties. That would appear to make it fairly simple to determine who is entitled to the medal, but regrettably it does not work out that way. The Ministry of Defence says that, as a matter of policy, it has disposed of records that were completed manually, and it now relies on those available through IT. The problem is that, before 1984, records of operational duties were compiled manually, so the information is no longer available to the MOD.
	I have been pressing the issue for a long time, and I thought that the problem had been cracked when the MOD made it clear that it was setting up a special group that would consider any applications, and that would take evidence from senior officers and others on whether a person had completed the necessary number of duties. However, it has not worked out. Many of my constituents complain that they completed that number of duties and more, and had letters from senior officers in the regiment saying that they had done so, but were turned down for the medal. One of the champions of the campaign is my constituent, Samuel Fisher. Although he has letters from senior officers not only stating that he completed the number of operational duties required, but listing the operational duties that he performed, he is still not being given the medal. It is unacceptable to leave people who have served their country so well with that kind of gripe. I trust that the MOD will look into the issue again.
	I do not want to devalue the medal by simply making it available to anybody who applies and claims, on their honour, to have completed the duties required, but some combination of the soldier's length of time in the regiment and the available records should be used to enable the MOD to reach a conclusion. Certainly, a more generous approach could be taken; there should be an assumption in favour of the soldier, rather than an presumption against, as seems to be the case at present. I trust that the Minister will relay that to his colleagues and will look sympathetically on the case of those who have served our country well. As we come out of conflict in Northern Ireland, I trust that we will remember those who stood by us when it was at its height.

Diane Abbott: I wish to speak on a subject of great concern to me and my constituents: the unfolding tragedy in Lebanon. It is worth reminding the House how the crisis began. It started two weeks ago, when Palestinians in Gaza captured an Israeli soldier with the intention of negotiating the release of some of the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners of war in Israel. Gaza took a pounding. There were attacks on electricity and water supplies and thousands of people suffered, but the rest of the world did nothing, including the Arab states.
	Hezbollah decided to do something about the situation and to pose as the champion of the Palestinian cause. It responded by capturing two more Israeli servicemen and, eventually, by firing rockets into Israelmost, if not all, of which were aimed at civilian targets. Of course, Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and respond to the missile threats, but the issue for me, my constituents and most of the Governments in the world, with the exception of those of America and Britain, is Israel's excessive use of force. Jan Egeland, the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, has described the Israeli response as a violation of humanitarian law.
	Earlier in the debate hon. Members spoke of the need to strengthen the Lebanese state. Of course that is important, but I am not clear how killing 370 Lebanese civilians, forcing 500,000 people to flee, smashing the bridges and roads, blockading the port and smashing the capital, Beirut, will strengthen the Lebanese state and make Lebanon more stable. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but as matters stand, casualties on the Israeli side and casualties on the Palestinian and Lebanese side are running at about 1:10 in favour of the Israelis.
	Israel insists that it is hitting only targets related to Hezbollah, but we can all see on our television screens the hundreds of civilians who are being hit, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Only yesterday television pictures were transmitted of two Red Cross vehicles clearly marked as Red Cross vehicles, lit as Red Cross vehicles, with Red Cross flags on top, which were deliberately bombed by the Israelis. Not only the patients inside the ambulances, but the Red Cross personnel were put in hospital.
	We have heard terrible reports of some of the Israeli activity, which may yet be seen to verge on war crimes. There are several instances of the Israeli military ordering civilians to leave their homes and then firing rockets into the evacuation fleet, blasting women and children refugees inside. The rockets that killed them are believed to be Hellfire missiles made by Lockheed Martin in Florida.
	The Israeli Government have not chosen the route of de-escalation and negotiation. Instead, they have chosen war. Britain and America are standing back and, as it is described, letting Israel deal with Hezbollah. What historical precedent is there for such military action successfully dealing with insurgent guerrillas, which is what Hezbollah is? Did it succeed in Malaysia, Cyprus or Kenya? How can it succeed in Lebanon?
	The action that Israel is taking in Lebanon looks increasingly less like an attack on a terrorist organisation and more like an attack on a nation. It looks increasingly like the collective punishment of the Lebanese people for failing, in Israeli eyes, to do more to contain Hezbollah. That cannot be right or fair, it is contrary to the laws of natural justice, and it cannot work, because for every Lebanese civilian who dies as a result of the current Israeli action, there will be many more recruits for the Hezbollah extremists, so even in its own terms, neither militarily nor politically can the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon achieve the professed aims.
	It is noticeable that even the strong middle east allies of Britain and America, such as the Iraqi Prime Minister yesterday, have clearly condemned what is happening. It is difficult for Britain and America to pose as people who wish to fight for human rights and national sovereignty across the world, when the Arab world sees what is happening to Lebanon. There is the never ending war in Afghanistan, the increasing devastation of Iraq, where thousands of people are dying, the continuing death and destruction in Gaza and the bombing of Beirut. How does that look on the Arab street? How does that make the world a safer place?

Nigel Evans: It seemed rather strange that no early ceasefire was sought by the United States or the United Kingdom; all that they talked about was an effective ceasefire. Surely any ceasefire that would have prevented the deaths of innocent men, women and children would have been an effective ceasefire. What does the hon. Lady believe the Arab states should be doing themselves to ensure that Hezbollah is properly removed from the area so that it cannot perpetrate its terrorism on Israel?

Diane Abbott: There is no question but that Syria and Iran could rein in Hezbollah if they so chose. But I agree that an effective ceasefire is one where the shooting stops, and if the shooting had stopped days ago, many hundreds of Lebanese men, women and children would be still alive and uninjured, and perhaps half a million Lebanese would not still be fleeing for their lives.
	What is happening in Lebanon, and the failure of Britain and America to take immediate action, reflects poorly on us throughout the world, makes the world a more dangerous place, and puts us in Britain in danger, because it will be seen in the context of what is happening across the middle east.
	I do not deny that Hezbollah and its patrons in Syria and Iran have a major responsibility for what is happening, but it is also the view of many of my constituents that Israel's continuing excessive and counter-productive military response approaches a war crime. My constituents and others have written to me to say how saddened they are that they do not see a British Prime Minister taking a clearer position on this.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said earlier how little the British Government have moved from being America's poodle in these matters. If the British Government had stood with their European counterparts in calling for an immediate ceasefire, we would have won respect around the world. Israel clearly believes that it has informal approval from George Bush and from our Prime Minister to continue its assault on Lebanon, both from the air and in a series of ground incursions across the border.
	The Prime Minister should take advantage of the special relationship with the American President to put pressure on the US to demand a ceasefire. We must encourage all sides to respect each other's sovereignty as well as international law, and work for the release of all prisoners held illegally without trial, as a means to end the current crisis. But above all, a negotiated settlement is the only route to a lasting peace in the middle east. The international community must make haste and contribute to bringing about the conditions necessary for the resumption of negotiations to allow humanitarian aid and the delivery of medicines and food to reach those in desperate need in order to avoid humanitarian catastrophe in the Lebanon.
	What unfolds in the Lebanon this summer will, despite the fact that Parliament is formally in recess, engage the attention of many of us, and I hope that if there is a very pressing crisis it may be possible to recall the House for a full debate.

Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution to this summer Adjournment debate. I wish to take this opportunity to raise just one issue that affects my constituency, but given the comments of many hon. Members it is the same issue that affects many of theirsthe crisis in health care in our constituencies.
	I raise the issue of health care in Harrogate and Knaresborough with particular sadness, because throughout my time in the House I have been at pains to point out my thanks and admiration for all those clinicians, managers and support staff who have made health care in my constituency a beacon of excellence.
	My constituency is blessed with arguably the finest and most dedicated group of general practitioners to be found anywhere in the UK. Those GPs have embraced reform, modernisation and the move to enhance the opportunities to deliver ever more services by primary care.
	We also have a general hospital, the Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, which was ranked as a three star hospital for three consecutive years before achieving compliance status as a foundation trust in 2006. It currently sees 100 per cent. of cancer patients within 14 days and treats them within 31 days of diagnosis. It also treats 100 per cent. of elective patients within 13 weeks, and it has one of the lowest rates of hospital MRSA in Britain. And it has balanced its books in every single year since 1992.
	All that has been put at risk by the Government's boom and bust policies and the arrogant tactics of the PCT, which appears more interested in pleasing its paymasters in London than patients in north Yorkshire as its officers scramble for posts in the new PCT structure. I say that with sadness, because until recently the Craven and Harrogate PCT delivered its services effectively, and it has remained in financial good health since its formation. In the space of six months, however, local GPs have come close to declaring a vote of no confidence in the chief executive of the PCT and are openly refusing to implement cuts in services that will put their patients at riskgood on them.

David Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that if local health authorities were democratically accountable, which they are not at the moment, very little of what he has described would have happened?

Phil Willis: I would like to believe that, but the problem is that there is currently no accountability within the service. Unaccountable people in unaccountable quangos have made the decisions, which affect a significant number of my constituents.
	The GPs were up in arms after the PCT issued new guidelines effectively blocking all but critical and urgent referrals. The guidelines cancelled access to treatment such as dermatology and led to the vetting of referrals through an internal administrative sieve. The proposals, which were presented without consultation with GPs, ignore GPs' ethical, professional and regulatory obligations. GPs provide the primary care bedrock to our NHS service, and it is important that we recognise their position. It is unacceptable for non-clinical staff to make judgments about GP referrals, as if GPs refer patients simply for the fun of it. Consultation is key in tackling any difficult situation in any organisation, and it is crucial in the NHS. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make such consultation a statutory requirement, not an add-on, in future.
	The GP referral issue impacts directly on both secondary and tertiary care, which means a direct impact on the Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust. Again, relationships have not simply broken down, because the two bodies are about to end up in court, where the worst case scenario is the closure of one of the country's most modern and most successful hospitals. The hospital's crime is that it treats patients too swiftly and too effectively. To deal with that, it must cut its activity by making patients wait for treatment until their conditions deteriorate, which means that staff and facilities will be under-utilised.
	More than 1 million of activity is being purchased from the private sector as part of a bizarre notion of choice. My constituents have been told that they can choose a hospital for their treatment provided that it is not their local NHS trust, which is the politics of the madhouse. Last year, the Harrogate trust was actively encouraged to take on more work, treat more patients and decrease waiting times and lists, all of which was in line with the Government policy of payment by results. The trust delivered the results: 3 million worth of extra patients in record time with top quality results, but the PCT has refused to pay up. The patients have been treated and the hospital has incurred the costs. At no time did the PCT discourage the activity, but it now claims that it does not have to pay and that the hospital should absorb the costs in the coming year. No business in the land could operate in that way, let alone one with a hugely expensive infrastructure. My local hospital cannot survive having its base budget slashed while being told to maintain current levels of activity. The Government must intervene in this dispute, if only to clarify their own policy. Foundation trusts are paid by activity or they are cash limited with their activity determined by an outside non-clinical bodyone cannot have it both ways. They cannot be expected to ride two horses at the same time. The Secretary of State must accept that the 3 million deficit that my trust faces should be managed over an equivalent number of years and that from now on all activity commissioned must be paid for by PCTs.
	The future of health care in Harrogate hangs by a thread as we speak. If the current policies of the PCT go unchallengedI suspect that a new chief executive and a new board will be required to win back the confidence of the cliniciansHarrogate could see its hospital closed and its GPs become ever more disillusioned. I sincerely hope that the Minister's right hon. Friend, the Health Secretary, is able to step in before it is too late.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am afraid that my contribution may be repetitious in that it, too, relates to health. Later today, I will have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition bearing some 20,000 names organised by John and Margaret Baker on behalf of the Friends of Conquest Hospital in Hastings. That petitionthe 20,000 names are only on account, as many more thousands are still signingwill tell the health authorities and the Government that we will not agree to the closure of our accident and emergency department. Given the massive record investment in health by this Labour Government, which has produced so much in recent years, it seems bizarre that such a petition is necessary, so what on earth is happening?
	I worry that many of the decisions being taken are similar to those described by other hon. Membersdecisions by managers that create a democratic deficit even greater than any apparent financial deficit. Why is it that at the top Ministers seem to make sound and sensible proposals, but at the local level we Members of Parliament appear to be impotent, incapable and unable to be any part of the decision making?

Sarah Teather: I am facing a similar situation in my constituency, where the trust is consulting on the reconfiguration of services, which may include the closure of an ambulatory care and diagnostics centrea brand new unit opened by the Prime Minister in 1999or the downgrading of an accident and emergency unit at Central Middlesex hospital to a minor A and E unit. People are afraid that even when the hospital consults, it may not listen to what they say.

Michael Jabez Foster: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns for her own area. Of course I do not know the details, but what is happening there might be similar to my local situation.
	The position is even worse than I have suggested, because the problem is not just the decisions but the way in which they are taken. Every week, we see graphic, dramatic, crisis-ridden headlines saying that 1,000 jobs are to go. Of course they are not, but the fact that such statements are allowed to be made is creating trauma in the local community. It is bad for our blood pressure as Members of Parliament to see such bizarre headlines. In any case, they are making a drama out of a non-crisis, because in fact the funding is not far behindit is the decision making that is far behind.
	I want to encourage my very able right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to take back controlnot only to take responsibility, which I know that they do, but to become more hands-on and work out for themselves what is happening in trusts that are allowing such decisions to be made.
	I appreciate that we are conducting the annual whinge debate, during which we all have a go about the terrible things that are happening in our constituencies. In fact, many wonderful things are happening in Hastings and Rye. Regeneration progresses apace and the health service is wonderful. Why do we keep pretending that it is not? Why do we keep threatening our local community with unnecessary dire predictions of closing various services?
	The history of that began when our local strategic health authority published a paper called An NHS Fit for the Future. The SHA said that it supported the Government's view that investment and reform were necessary. We all agree with that. However, it also said that in areas such as Hastings and the Sussex coast, accident and emergency services should be provided only in areas containing 400,000 people. That immediately makes people believe that Hastings and the other towns along the coast such as Eastbourne will lose their accident and emergency departmentsalthough we do not know that.
	It gets worse, because the local media then start talking about downgrading to cottage hospitals. I thought that that was all right, because I could simply ask the chief executive to cross out the words cottage hospitals so that we all knew that we were not considering that. However, she said no, that she had a blank sheet and she had to think things through from the beginning. Of course the hospital in question will not become a cottage hospitalbut why on earth can the SHA not say so? Why can it not say that some changes will take place but that all the dramas and crises, with people worried about their jobs, are unnecessary?
	When people are worried about their jobs, staff numbers reduce because those who are most able to leave will go. We can then end up with staff who are not necessarily the most able. Of course many are able, and we are fortunate that the staff in our local hospitals are so good. However, behaviour such as I have described leads to an unnecessary predicament that, in management terms, defies belief.

Betty Williams: Although health is a devolved issue in Wales, does my hon. Friend accept that such behaviour happens throughout the United Kingdom? What health trusts and local health boards call a consultation exercise is usually not that, and the scaremongering tactics by the press and others create fear in people's hearts. Can we not have proper consultation exercises, which ask the right questions?

Michael Jabez Foster: My hon. Friend is right. The media will always jump on a bad storybut why do we give them the story? Why do we create crises?

David Howarth: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. In my area, the primary care trust is 45 million in deficit. Does he claim that that is not real?

Michael Jabez Foster: No. I do not know how competent the hon. Gentleman's PCT is; mine is extremely competent, and in balance.

Several hon. Members: rose

Michael Jabez Foster: I am sorry but I shall take no more interventions, because of the time.
	It is not only the SHA decisions on accident and emergency departments that cause problems. When one encourages hospital trusts to consider such possibilities, other bizarre ideas are formulated. Three or four weeks ago, our local hospital trust decided overnight to close the maternity department. That decision lasted only 48 hours, and is now to be considered over six months. Doubtless my threat to mention the matter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister helped. Whatever the reason, the decision caused unnecessary alarm and despondency. We must get to grips with such decisions.
	Apart from being the centre of the universe and the place where everyone wants to be bornand there will be no future Hastingsers if the maternity department shutsHastings is the 27th poorest town in Britain. It has no network of roads. It is 30 miles to one hospital and 20 miles to another, with no motorways and only six miles of dual carriageway in the county. Forty per cent. of my constituents have no car of their own. How could they travel that sort of distance, and why should they have to do it? There is therefore special pleading to be made for areas such as Hastings.
	However, my greater point is to ask why the people of Eastbourne should lose their A and E department. There is simply no reason for this kind of dramatic decision making, and 20,000 people in Hastingsand no doubt many more to comeare saying no to the closure of their A and E and maternity departments.
	If that were the only problem, it would be bad enough. However, there are so many more

Andrew Turner: rose

John Bercow: rose

Michael Jabez Foster: I cannot give way. I would, of course, but I have no time.
	I want to talk about the strategic health authority making decisions about our primary care trusts. A few weeks ago, it decided that we were to lose our focused, excellent primary care trust, which is within budget, on delivery and all the rest of it. Thankfully, however, Ministers intervened and decided that we should retain our local PCT. The subsequent decision of the SHAsome have described it as the revenge of the SHA, although I would not use that wordwas to say that we could have two primary care trusts, but we could only have one chief executive to run them. That is meaningless. The SHA appointed a new chair for the PCTan excellent individualbut it was not surprising that when he learned that he was to work with only half a chief executive, he decided not to take the job.
	That is the nature of what is going on in the NHS in my area. Of course, at the lowest level it is delivering brilliantly. People are being seen much sooner than ever before, all the bells and whistles are there in the heart department, and all sorts of wonderful things are happening. People are generally happy with their NHS [ Interruption.] They might not be in some Conservative areas, but perhaps that is because they just want to complain. However, in my area and most others, people are certainly happy with the NHS. Given that that is the situation, I want to encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to seize the opportunity provided by the success that they have achieved recently, and to urge them not to let the bureaucrats mess it up.

David Tredinnick: I am grateful to have been called to speak in this very busy debate. I, too, wish to refer to the serious crisis in Lebanon. Like many other Members, I am deeply concerned about what is happening there. I see it as a tragedy of errorsa war that did not have to take place and should not have begun. The Government's policy on the issue is quite extraordinary and needs to be examined. I should like to draw on my experiences in Northern Ireland, where, a long time ago, I was responsible for building part of the peace line in Belfast. I had the experience of driving the pikes into the ground at that time.
	The policy of the Israeli Government is absolutely catastrophic. It was the greatest error imaginable to move back into Lebanon, and the UK Government policy on this is totally misguided. What Israel's policy has achieved for Israel is desperate: its northern cities are being attacked at a time of holiday, families are being killed, and the country is less secure than ever. It is more threatened than it has been for many years, and it is now faced with rockets with a greater range than ever before.
	When I heard about the capture of the Israeli soldiers I thought, What a great opportunity for Israel to show statesmanship. What an opportunity for them to step back and give a measured response. That was obviously what was needed. Hezbollah was clearly not being controlled by the Lebanese Government. From my experience in Northern Ireland, I question whether the Hezbollah people who took those soldiers were really controlled by Hezbollah. This looked like the work of a splinter group, rather than the main Hezbollah.
	The Israelis' absolute refusal to have any discussions on the issue was what started this war. We are told that Hezbollah started the war, but it did not. What started it was the fact that there was no negotiation. Historically, in 1979, 1985, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2004, Israel negotiated over the release of prisoners. The reason Hezbollah did this was not that it was being pushed by Iran but that it has thousands of prisoners in Israeli jailsmen, women and children. That is what caused this resistance movement to gain energy and to take this desperate course of action. Now, Israel is faced with this attack. I do not condone or support it; I think that it is a terrible mistake.
	The response of the international community has been even worse. Who can remember Henry Kissinger flying between cities as fast as he could to try to resolve past crises? What do we have here? We have a G8 that is incapable of coming up with a formula. We have an American Government who have given the Israelis a free hand to smash up Lebanon under the pretext that that is necessary to defeat Hezbollah. We have a British Government whoI say this really of the Foreign Secretaryappear to parrot American policy. When a commentator on the Radio 4 Today programme asked the Foreign Secretary about Iraq in connection with Lebanon, she appeared to think that there was no connection. She is completely out of touch.
	We now have the ludicrous situation in which the demand made by the Israelis for the implementation of UN resolution 1559 calling for the Lebanese Government to control and disarm Hezbollahwhich has become less likely than everis now a policy. Against that background, other UN resolutions242 and 338, calling for the withdrawal of Israelis from territories occupiedare completely ignored, as if they had never existed. What folly it is to have that policy now. Britain has no troops in Israel but thousands across Arabia, had a terrorist attack in London last year, and has 1.6 million Muslims, and yet we have managed to put most of our friends in Arabia off-side by not coming out strongly against the destruction of civilian infrastructure, affecting Arabs, Christians and all those in the emerging democracy of Lebanon.
	What folly it is, too, to take no notice of the fact that Hamas won the elections in Palestine. We support democracies when it is convenientthat is the American waybut what happens when the wrong people are in charge? Has anyone remembered that Hezbollah runs schools, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, and has been elected to the Beirut Parliament?
	Why are we in such a mess? I have referred to the Foreign Secretary, but let me talk for a while about the Prime Minister's special envoy to the middle east, the noble Lord Levy. He has not visited a single Arab countryI have looked it upbut he has made copious visits to Israel, of which he is clearly a strong supporter, with a business and relations there. He is supposed to be impartial. Why did the Prime Minister not choose someone who is an old Arab hand and really knows his way around the middle east? If we go to the Spinwatch website, we find that apparently, when the noble Lord took on his other role to raise large sums of money for the Labour party, it was on the
	tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel.
	I have done a rough check on Library figures, and about a quarter to a third of all the money raised in loans for the Labour party since the noble Lord has been involved has come from pro-Israeli supporters. When we have thousands of our troops in Arab countries, is it possible that there is a link between the Labour party being short of money and British foreign policy in support of the Israeli position? Is it possible that the Government are conveniently ignoring our interests in the wider Arab world because of Labour's domestic difficulties? I hope that someone will investigate this important matter.
	I fear for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Government have done them a great disservice by not coming out strongly against the attacks on Arab civilian installations. It makes their task much more difficult. It is absolutely essential, however, that we take a more sympathetic view, and that we listen more to our British Muslims and try to give them comfort by not simply going along with an American policy that is clearly at variance with that which most people in the world believe to be sensible.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm. As many Members clearly wish to speak, may I suggest that speeches lasting between three and five minutes might enable more to do so?

Nigel Evans: I shall obey your command, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important for us to discuss one or two more issues before we adjourn.
	As the Minister now on the Front Bench will know, the House will go into recess today and we will not return until the second week in October. What is mentioned every year at about this time is that the processes of government continue, decisions continue to be made, and Ministers continue to work. Some people confuse recesses with holidays. Recess means that Ministers are still working in their Departments, and will take just a couple of weeks off, like most other people. As Members of Parliament too, we need an opportunity to table written questions to Ministers during recesses. The summer recess is a very long period. I know that this is mentioned time and again, and the Minister always says, We are looking into it, or, The Modernisation Committee is looking into it, but is it not about time that we had a decision?
	I also want to mention one or two local issues. One is the A59 in my constituency, which I have mentioned in the House before. There is one particularly dangerous junction where we see many accidentsincluding, sadly, fatalitiesevery year. The county council has erected some bollards to prevent traffic from turning right at the junction between Sabden and Clitheroe, but accidents still happen there. What is needed is a roundabout, but we are told that the county council has no money with which to provide one. That strikes me as rather odd.
	We are obsessed with road safety in this country. Nowadays we cannot go anywhere without seeing speed cameras all over the place, and I understand that millions of pounds are raised in fines. Would it not be intelligent not just to plough that money into new cameras, but to spend some of it on road safety measures? One such measure might be the provision of a roundabout on that road in my constituency. The money could also fund projects for which county councils could bid if it could be proved that they would save lives. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think more about that.
	I shall mention only one other issuethe joint strike fighter aircraft. I am a member of the Western European Union delegation. A number of WEU Members visited Washington recently to look at the aircraft, and we were also proud to see all the work that was going on when we went to the Farnborough air show. Some of the aircraft is manufactured in Samlesbury, in my constituency.
	The issue with which I have a problem is the lack of technology transfer between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. We are fighting shoulder to shoulder throughout the world, yet when we ask for technology to be transferred to this country we receive a complete blank from the United States. We met the deputy Defence Secretary, who said that there was no problem between Government and Government but there might be a problem between industry and industry. That is clearly a load of rubbish, and indeed other Americans to whom we spoke during our visit completely discredited what he had said.
	We were expecting an announcement at Farnborough about further technology transfer, but that has not happened. The joint strike fighter is an important military aircraft for the future of manufacturing in the United Kingdom. If we are to engage in future collaboration, there must be a proper understanding between the partners that technology is transferred, and that that should not happen only in one direction. The United Kingdom has transferred technology to the United States on short take-off and vertical landing. We did it in one direction; I simply cannot understand why it is not happening in the other direction. I know that the Government are already looking closely into that, but I hope that they will shortly announce that we are making further progress. We want collaborations to take place in the future, but that will require proper technology transferin both directions.

Richard Younger-Ross: I shall try to be fairly brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	There are a number of issues that I think the House should debate fully before the recess, one of which, the middle east, has already been touched on. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to reassure us that Parliament will be recalled during the recess if the situation in Lebanon deteriorates, if the situation in Iraq deteriorates and the country ends up in full civil war, and if our relationship with Iran deteriorates. Those are all serious matters that need to be dealt with in the House.
	We now have a two and a half month period in which we cannot hold the Government to account. That period was shorter in the past, because we sat in September. That sitting should be reinstated so that we do not go quite so long. We still have time off during the rest of the year, but we no longer make up for it in September, so the sooner we reinstate the September sitting, the better.
	To return to the current crisis in Lebanon, I have heard reports that the Israelis are using a new type of shell, the shrapnel from which is not detectable on X-ray. That makes it very difficult for the doctors who are treating the injured to remove the offending particles from the body. I hope that the Government will look further into that matter and find out whether those reports are true. I trust that the Minister will pass that on.
	Domestic matters are important to my constituents and none less than water charges. South West Water has its annual general meeting this Thursday and MPs and councillors will be protesting at that meeting about the high level of water charges in the south-westthe highest in the country. As has been put on record before, 3 per cent. of the population is still paying for cleaning up 30 per cent. of the country's beaches.
	The high water charges are not just the responsibility of South West Water. They flow from the mechanisms of privatisation, whereby there is no method for spreading infrastructure costs across the country, so they have to be borne by the individual water companies. The costs in the south-west are disproportionate. With above-inflation council tax rises as well as excessive water charges, pensioner households in the south-west are spending between a fifth and a quarter of their income on those costs alone. That, quite frankly, is unacceptable.
	I want to make just two further brief points. First, affordable housing is a real problem in the south-west. We need a proper debate about when the Government are going to tackle the problem of affordable housing in Devon. In Teignbridge, the cost of housing as a percentage of income is higher than anywhere in Surrey: the Government will provide assistance for emergency and other workers in Surry, but no such aid or assistance comes to Devon or to my constituency.
	Lastly, I want to say a few words about planning. My background is in architecture and over many years I have watched towns being blighted by poor planning decisions. I am talking about coming into a town and having to see the back end of a supermarket because the planners were not prepared to opt for a more attractive front. The Government are able to help in respect of Government and local government buildings, and I urge them to improve the planning quality of some of their buildings.
	To provide one example, a fire station was built in Teignmouth in a prime location for tourists entering the town. It is a beautiful spot. There is nothing particularly wrong with the design of the fire station; it is competent enough, but being in such a prime location, it should have been a lot better. When I argued that the fire authority should provide a better design, it said that there was no time or money to do so. That was nonsense and the problem is that the station will be there for years to come.

David Lidington: Yesterday, the Healthcare Commission published the results of its investigation into outbreaks of clostridium difficile in Stoke Mandeville hospital. Its report describes the most appalling human tragedy. There were more than 300 cases of people taken ill between 2003 and 2005 and more than 30 people have died either definitely or probably as a result of that infection.
	Stoke Mandeville is the local hospital for the great majority of my constituents and it is the biggest employer in my constituency. To make my personal interest clear, it is the hospital at which all four of my children were born and on which my family rely for our own medical care.
	The Healthcare Commission's report described in pungent terms serious failings and misjudgments by the local management team. It is important that those lessons be clearly learned and that procedures are followed in future to avoid that shocking sequence of events happening again. However, the commission's report also includes recommendations that clearly require a response from Ministers.
	On page after page of the report, the commission describes occasions on which the wish of the infection control staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital to ensure that the control of infection and the isolation of patients was given priority over other things came up against the insistence of the hospital management that Government targets on case management, waiting times and finance had to be met first; and against a sincere, strongly held belief on the part of senior hospital management, which I know from my constituency experience is by no means confined to Stoke Mandeville, that failure to deliver on those Government targets would put people's jobs at risk and lead to serious financial penalties being imposed on the hospital.
	In the time available, I am unable to list as many examples, drawn from yesterday's report, as I would wish. I will confine myself to one example. On page 89 of the report, the commission states:
	At Stoke Mandeville Hospital, the increased throughput of patients needed to meet performance targets resulted in patients being moved, difficulties in isolating patients with infection and high occupancy of beds.
	It continued:
	The lack of suitable isolation facilities at Stoke Mandeville Hospital was exacerbated by changes to wards such as 'ring-fencing' surgical beds in order to deliver Government's targets... Higher occupancy of beds meant that there was less time for thorough cleaning.
	I have visited the hospital, both as the Member of Parliament and in a private capacity as a visitor, on many occasions over the past 14 years. I have full confidence in the professionalism and dedication of its staff, from cleaners, nurses and doctors to the management. I believe that its staff can learn the lessons of the report and reassure my constituents that they can expect high-quality care when they are treated there, but I also believe that what those staff want from the Government is less insistence on inflexible targets imposed from the centre and much greater trust in the professionalism and skill of the staff at the front line to deliver the care that they have devoted their working lives to providing.

Anne Milton: I realise that time is short, but I should like to refer to three issues in my constituency, one of which has been mentioned already by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), who is no longer in his seat, and it is Creating an NHS fit for the futurea consultation document released by the strategic health authority in my constituency. I am slightly staggered that anyone could possibly believe that that document is entirely the responsibility and in the ownership of the SHA.
	In my view, that document has been produced in response to pressure from the Government to make substantial savings. Without doubt, the document will put the Royal Surrey county hospital in Guildford at serious risk. There is no doubt that services will be reduced. There are rumours about maternity services and paediatrics, and reductions in the provision of accident and emergency services are also on the cards. What is distressing to my constituents is that there is no doubt that their health will be put at risk. At a recent public meeting that I and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) organised, it was clear from the concerns of the clinicians, the GPs and other doctors that lives will be on the line if there is any downgrading of accident and emergency care.
	Another point about accident and emergency departments that is sadly often overlooked is that when they are downgraded, it is often downgrading by stealth. When accident and emergency departments shut, the services that sit behind them fall as well, like a line of dominoes: research opportunities fall, as does much of the acute work taken on by the hospital, and that hospital's ability to attract staff is greatly diminished.
	Another issue that I want to raise is the funding formula. Many references have been made to the loss of hospital services in various constituencies, but I wish to draw attention to the funding formula that we are all subjected to in order to get our NHS budgets. It is commonly believed by the Government that a lot of the financial problems are due to poor management. However, I draw the Government's attention to work done in Suffolk, and in Plymouth by Professor Asthana, which suggests precisely the opposite, which is that constituencies such as mine, which are essentially rural and slightly more affluent than most, are being chronically underfundedso my constituents' health is not worth as much as the health of those in constituencies such as the Prime Minister's.
	Let me briefly mention another issue that is of huge concern to many of my constituents in places such as Hurtmore, Eashing and Shackleford, as well as to a wider population: the inclusion of Eashing farm in a draft minerals plan. Let me explain what is sad about such issues: because this site has been included in a draft minerals plan, residents will be facing blight for the best part of two or three years, while waiting for a decision finally to be made. The area I have mentioned is close to a site of special scientific interest, and there will be increasing amounts of traffic and a significant impact on the local hydrology and the flow of spring water. There will also of course be noise and vibration from the extraction and associated activity; and then at the end, what will be put in the huge hole that remains? That draws attention to a problem that many of my constituents face: they feel completely powerless to have any impact on the decision making. They are faced with this tremendous blight on their homes, and they can do nothing about it.
	In my constituency, people's faith in consultation is running very thin. We have recently had decisions to close community hospitals. Decisions have been made to close the day hospital at Cranleigh, beds at Cranleigh, and the rehabilitation centre at Milford; 94 per cent. of people said that they did not want that option to go ahead, butlo and beholdthat is the option that goes ahead.
	As ever, planning issues generate a huge number of concerns, which I am sure many of my hon. Friends share. Such issues include mobile phone masts, town cramming and overdevelopment of back gardens. Another issue that has not been stressed as often as some others is the cumulative effect of planning applications. There are areas to the north of Guildford where the roads are actually quite narrow and each year, bit by bit, there is planning creep; more and more applications come in, and ever more of them are accepted. There is exponential growth in that area, without the infrastructure to cope. We now have a situation in which motorists are mounting the pavements and are putting children walking to school at risk. That draws attention to the fact that local people want to have their say on planning applications. They make good decisions when given the opportunity to do so. The problem is that current planning legislation does not allow local residents to have their say.

Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who commented on something that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) said earlier. I must say that I sympathise with him in having to face these difficult headlines at a time when so much money is being put into the health service, yet none of it appears to be producing the desired effect. Of course, his accident and emergency unit is under threat because the cost of providing such a unit has risen as a result of, among other things, implementing the European working time directive and not putting enough money into the health service locally to cover doing so.
	I do have a word of congratulation for the national health service and for the Government, however. They have taken account of the special circumstances of the Isle of Wight in providing a united primary care trust and national health acute trust, which will be launched very shortly. I am grateful to them for taking account of my constituents' feelings on that issue, and I wish that they would take equal account of their feelings on the shortage of dentists on the island. Some 24,000 people are still awaiting allocation to an NHS dentist, but even when they have been allocated, in two years' time half my constituents will still be without an NHS dentist. So there are some congratulations, and some pleas for the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Department of Health.
	I want to mention two other local issues, the first of which is pet cemeteries. Members may recall that during the first Prime Minister's questions after the last general election, I raised with the Prime Minister the closure of a pet cemetery on the Isle of Wight as a result of licensing fees set by the Environment Agency, which was licensing it under the European landfill directive. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister and other Ministers intervened. They all whizzed round, the Environment Agency got involved and it sent someone to visit the pet cemetery. Many months ago, I was assured that a decision had been reached and that everything in the garden was going to be rosy. In the past week, however, I received a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), saying that the situation had not quite been sorted out yet, but that he hoped something would be done shortly. Well, he now has until early September not to be pestered by me by means of written questions. I hope that the next time I ask him a question, he will be able to assure me that the situation has been sorted out.
	The final local issue that I want to raise is concessionary fares for public transport users. I know that the Government recently introduced significant concessions for elderly people using public transport. In the run-up to the election, they introduced free local bus travel after 9.30 am, and since the election they have introduced free national local bus travelas it wereafter that time. I am pleased to say that my local authority, of which we took control in 2005 after 20 years of Liberal Democrat control, has extended that free concessionary fare so that it applies 24 hours a day, and extended it to the trains. Furthermore, it has implemented a 50p flat-rate fare for people aged under 19 who are in full-time education, so that they can travel anywhere on the island, by train or bus, for that fare.
	Those are great achievements, but my real concern is that the Government seem to think that there is only one mode of public transport: the bus. I visited the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) when she was a transport Minister, and I invited her to think about whether there should be concessions on water-borne transport, as well as on buses. She said that it was not up to her, and that the Chancellor had thought about that issue. It is clear that the Chancellor does not know that there are such things as ferries, despite living in Scotland, so no money was available in the first tranche of concessionary fares for users of ferries.
	Sad to say, the Chancellor did not get the message from the Department for Transport in time for the introduction of the wider range of concessionary fares, so there are still no such fares for elderly people travelling by ferry, apart from those provided through the benevolence of the ferry operators. Will the Government consider whether it is fair that one can have free or concessionary travel on a bus, but not on equally important journeys to hospital, the shops, school, university or work if one happens to need to travel by ferry? I hope that the Minister will pass that on.
	Several other hon. Members have raised my final issue, so I shall abbreviate what I intended to say. I feel most profoundly that the Minister for the Middle East sounds as if he cares about what is happening in both Israel and Lebanon. He spoke like a Minister who cared, not a Minister who was speaking in code or who sounded like the speaking clock. We have spoken of the troubles and how they were caused, and I do not wish to go into that because we have said enough about it today.
	I regret profoundly, however, that the United Kingdom has lost its role as honest broker in the middle easta role that it had redeveloped since the Suez crisis 50 years agolargely as a result of the Prime Minister behaving like Mr. Bush's poodle and as a result of his frankly ridiculous stories about why we should invade Iraq, stories that, I am pleased to say, some Opposition Members did not believe. We are now in the terrible position of apparently simply parroting the words of Mr. Bush. Last week the Minister for the Middle East said that we should not simply call for a ceasefire. On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice said that we should be calling for a ceasefire, so yesterday the Prime Minister said that we should call for a ceasefire. That is behaving more like a parrot than a Prime Minister and leader of a serious nation.
	My greatest concern is the hostility to this country that has arisen across the Arab world and, in particular, among the 1.6 million Muslims in this country. It is profoundly distressing to see people on the streets of this country defending either of the participants in a foreign war. We should not have foreign wars fought out, even figuratively speaking, on the streets of this country by adherents on either side. If people come to this country, they should expect to support what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom and its people, not what is in the best interests of the countries from which they came or the religions to which they belong. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Prime Minister the need to show more balance in the treatment of both sides in the terrible events in the middle east.

Bob Spink: Under previous Governments no one in clinical need would be refused treatment by the NHS. But the new NHS denies treatments to sufferers from Alzheimer's disease, and it denies anti-TNF treatments to those suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. This rationed NHS is becoming less humane.
	Depriving brain tumour patients of drugs that can prolong their lives condemns people to a premature death. I declare an interest as my son is a neurosurgeon. The fact that we have come so far from an NHS based on clinical judgment is evidenced by the 36 neuro-oncologists who wrote to the Secretary of State for Health to ask that two treatmentstemozolomide and carmustine implantsbe made available to all brain tumour patients who need them.
	It may be time to ensure that the methodologies of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence are based on scientific evidence and that NICE takes into account the wider economic, societal and human costs or benefits when making its decisions. Why do other countries achieve palpably better outcomes on health and associated matters? For instance, buphenorphine stops morphine being taken up by the cell receptors and helps addicts come off drugs. It is used in France, where they achieve a retention rate of 88 per cent., with only a 7 per cent. delinquent rate on follow-up. But in the UK, only 28 per cent. of drug treatment and testing orders are completed satisfactorily and reconviction rates are 80 per cent., opposite figures to those achieved in France. Why are survival rates in the UK for brain cancers so low, compared with other parts of Europe? How has Australia managed to identify 80 per cent. of its chronic hepatitis C cases, compared with only 23 per cent. in the UK? I am sure that many excellent colleagues from all sides of the House will join me in pushing the Government to review their policies on NICE.
	In addition, I ask the Government to remove the uncertainty over Remploy, which is causing great concern. Although I understand that the Southend branch that employs so many of my constituents is not at risk, I hope that Ministers will make a statementover the recess, if necessaryso that the minds of vulnerable people can be put at rest.
	We must welcome the trilateral talks on Gibraltar and its constitutional reform, to which Gibraltar's First Minister Peter Caruana has adopted a very positive approach. In addition, we must praise and thank Cyprus for its contribution to the international effort on the evacuation of people from Lebanon. The UK must support both communities in Cyprus in the work to get a just settlement through the UN process agreed by Tassos Papadopoulos and Mehmet Ali Talat. That process should begin immediately and involve bi-communal discussions of all the issues. The UK must support and help Turkey in every way in its bid to join the EU, as it is probable that that will be one of the catalysts to the achievement of a solution to the Cyprus problem.
	Finally, I always hoped that the UK would be able to retain its sovereignty in the EU and bring about root-and-branch reform from within, but I now accept that Sir Teddy Taylor was right all along and that I was wrong. Our rebate and national sovereignty are under threat, as waste and corruption increase in the EU as a result of the increasing failure of accounts and controls.
	Nowadays, two thirds of our laws are made in Europe and not in this Parliament, but there is no proper scrutiny or democratic accountability. Therefore, I now accept that the bestthe onlyway forward for the UK is to withdraw from the EU. That would enable us to protect our borders better, and to generate more jobs and wealth. We would then be able to take better care of our citizens, especially those vulnerable people who, like the Remploy employees, are deeply worried about their jobs.

John Barrett: I, too, shall be brief. I want to raise several matters that affect my constituents, whose concern for people elsewhere in the world I find very heartening.
	The city of Edinburgh is my home city, and that of the Deputy Leader of the House. It is hard to believe that a year has passed since the Make Poverty History marches took place there. Hopes were high and promises were made, but since then the World Trade Organisation talks have collapsed, with trade-distorting subsidies by the EU and US remaining as a barrier to helping poor countries trade their way out of poverty.
	A number of constituents have contacted me about the situation in Lebanon after watching the daily television images of the conflict there. The images have been gruesome enough, but they are merely a sanitised version of what is really happening on the ground. Other hon. Members have spoken about their concerns in this debate, but my greatest fear is that Israel's policy in respect of Lebanon is the single biggest threat to its own future as a state. It cannot carry on as it has, and the Governments of the UK and the US should change their approach and put pressure on Israel. The Prime Minister says that he has a special relationship with the US President: if so, he must use it to that end.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made an excellent speech, and I disagree with very little of what she said. If time permits, however, I too intend to mention the question of nuclear power.
	Various hon. Members this afternoon have spoken about access to water, which is an important matter for many countries in the developing world. I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Select Committee on International Development, and we will look at the matter later in the year. We are in the middle of a long, hot summer and think that we are suffering, but I am pleased to say that many people are aware of the serious problems that arise further afield.
	I am pleased that the Government have taken action on the Child Support Agency. I was elected five years ago, and hardly a week has gone by without constituents turning up to my advice surgery with serious complaints about the CSA. The shake-up will be of little comfort to their families if it is only a fanfare of Government spin and the new system does not adequately pursue the errant fathers or ex-partners who do not pay the money due to mothers and to their children.
	Throughout the past year, with the support of a number of local community groups in my constituency, I have raised their problems in organising local events. They are being hampered by their battle against the red tape that stifles too many of their good efforts. I should like to go into more detail, but unfortunately time is against me.
	The Chernobyl disaster occurred 20 years ago, and I want to record my opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations and to reinforce the importance of investing in energy efficiency, microgeneration and renewable energy. There are many more things I could say, but time is against the House and I want to give other Members the opportunity to contribute.

Andrew Selous: I shall be brief. First, I want to mention endowment shortfalls, which a number of my constituents have raised with me. The House and the Government are not taking the issue seriously. Statistics tell us that many endowment policies will come to fruition in the next five to 10 years, and a large number of our constituents will find themselves in serious financial difficulty. The Treasury Committee should look into the matter and might encourage the industry to consider how to deal with the shortfalls. The Committee could also consider whether unclaimed assets might be used, as they should be for people whose pensions have collapsed.
	My second point is that parents should choose whether their child attends a special or a mainstream school. It is outrageous that parents are forced either to keep their child in a mainstream school when they think the child would do better in a specialist school, and vice versa. Parents know their children better than anyone elsecertainly better than any local education authority official. We must reach a position where parents decide on their child's school.
	My third point is the need for an index of social and domestic cohesion. That sounds like a bit of a mouthful, but the House will have an opportunity to do something about it when the Bill on the Office for National Statistics is introduced in the autumn. It is a curious fact that the social exclusion unit lists eight indicators of social deprivation, one of which is family breakdown. All the other seven indicators are reflected in the indices of deprivation published in the ONS neighbourhood statistics, but family breakdown is not. There is no reason for that omission and we could rectify it in the House in the autumn. I urge my Front-Bench colleagues and the Government to consider the matter when the Bill comes before the House.
	Lastly, I want to raise my concern that the Prison Service has closed the inner change programme in Dartmoor prison. We know that such programmes reduced recidivism rates from 55 to 8 per cent. in several American states. The inner change programme could have been treated like the alpha course, which runs in many prisons, but the Prison Service chose not to do so, which is a tragedy. I am unhappy about what I have learned about that case and shall raise it on other occasions, because it needs to be examined.

Andrew Pelling: I want to draw attention to my local authority's campaign, which I endorse, for a fair deal for Croydon. The campaign has a cross-party basis, with the involvement of the three Croydon MPs and the parties represented in the London borough of Croydon. It may have been modelled on a cross-party campaign in the London borough of Sutton, which successfully argued for proper area cost adjustment treatment for the local authority. Indeed, so successful was that campaign that Sutton residents receive 29 a head more than Croydon residents.
	Many of our troubles financially in Croydon are down to our own errors and mistakes in holding a referendum on council tax. After the referendum, we had a 27 per cent. increase in the council tax four years ago. However, the director of finance at Croydon council now predicts that a 71 per cent. increase in council tax will be required over the next four years. The situation is unreasonable when compared with that in a borough such as Ealing, which has a similar rate of unemployment, the same rate of owner occupation, the same number of council tenants and a fairly similar proportion of black and minority ethnic communities. The rate of payment is 422 per head in Ealing, but only 306 per head in Croydon. I have asked many questions over the past year about Government funding streams for Croydon and they have shown that we get a rate much below that which is available in other parts of London. We are going through dynamic change in terms of our population make-up and I hope that the fair deal for Croydon will get a fair hearing in the next Session.

Bob Russell: Until a month ago, plans were at a very advanced stage for a massive 160 million expansion of Colchester general hospital. Planning permission had been given and the general publicnot to mention all those involved with the national health service locallywere looking forward to the much-needed development and facilities being provided. There were hopes last year that work would start in January this year. It did not. Then, without any notice, last month the plug was pulled. The scheme had been aborted.
	It is not my intention today to engage in the blame game. What I and my constituents want is not answers relating to what went wrong, but answers relating to what the Department of Health is going to do to provide the people and town of Colchester, and the wider area of north Essex, with the hospital facilities and services that, up to last month, they had been promised, and that those responsible for the NHS at a local, regional and national level had concluded were of great necessity. Why else had so much time, effort and money been spent on taking forward an officially sanctioned 160 million expansion?
	As a result of parliamentary questions that I tabled, last week it was revealed that the Department of Health has not even bothered to talk to Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust, which is responsible for Colchester general hospital, about the collapse of the expansion scheme. The information that I gleaned prompted the Colchester  Evening Gazette last Friday to publish a comment article headed Sort this mess out now.
	A senior member of staff at Colchester general hospital has used much more colourful language to express his seething disapproval of what has happened. He told me last night:
	Senior consultants are appalled by the way in which our PFI was axed without any meaningful consultation with those who will now find themselves in a Health Service 'poverty trap'.
	I am no fan of the private finance initiative to fund public services and buildings. They tend to end up costing the public purse moremortgaging future generations with huge debtsand operate on the basis of generating profit for the private sector companies at the expense of public services, to the disadvantage of both those working in the public services and the public who use those services.
	Colchester is growing rapidly. There are extensive residential developments not only in the town but throughout north Essex. We have a bigger population and an increasingly ageing one. The present hospital facilities are simply inadequate. There has to be expansion. The cost of the abandoned expansion has been put at 10 million wasted. Of that, about 3 million has been lost by the NHSby the local Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust and the NHS centrallyand an estimated 7 million by the private sector partner. However, it has been reported that the private sector partner will seek to recover the 7 million it has spent, which, if the Department of Health caves in and agrees, will see the total loss to the NHS being anything up to 10 million, without anything to show for it.
	The situation is so serious that last week Colchester borough council registered its deep concerns, with all three political parties tabling motions on the subject. The council resolved to invite the Secretary of State for Health
	to share urgently with the people of north-east Essex her alternative strategy for delivery of the expansion of their hospital and the development of local cancer services within the timetable originally envisaged.
	There are real fears locally that unless cancer services are centralised at Colchester general hospital, as had been agreed, many of those services will be transferred to other towns. An urgent assurance is therefore sought that the promise of improved cancer treatment services centred on Colchester general hospital will be delivered. There is, however, a sliver of a silver lining to the dark cloud, because scrapping the privately funded 160 million expansion will save taxpayers from a financial millstone. They would have had to foot the bill over the next 30 years.
	The big issue now is what happens next. We have to make up for four years of time and effort that has been wasted on the costly PFI adventure, and to seek funds directly from the Government to pay for the developments that have been identified as being required. For decades, under successive Conservative and Labour Governments, residents of Colchester and north Essex have received less than their fair share of NHS funding. In 2001, after two years of local debate, the then Secretary of State for Health approved a 2.4 million grant for the local trust to embark on the Government's recommended and approved PFI process to obtain the finances to underpin a truly centralised and modernised service.
	Time is against me, but let me just conclude with the comments of my source:
	If the Government had the wit of a potato it would see the obvious and step back from destroying the fabric and function of the NHS. Our patients deserve better than what is on offer. Patient choice under this administration seems to come down to 'take it or lump it'.
	It is to be hoped that the Department of Health will do the decent thing and fund the 160 million expansion that, as has been proved, is clearly needed at Colchester general hospital.

Theresa May: We must have had a record number of speakers and a record number of issues raised in a summer recess Adjournment debate. I start by referring to the comments made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) about our former colleague, the late Kevin Hughes. He was indeed a decent and hard-working Member of the House, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.
	It is not surprising that a large number of speeches were about the health service. The debate was kicked off by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who bemoaned the cut in funding for hospital redevelopment in his constituency, and he particularly mentioned Leicester general hospital, which will not get the money it was expecting. That theme was continued by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who referred to the lack of provision and the rationing of treatment, particularly for Alzheimer's and rheumatoid arthritis. As a patron of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, I share his concerns on that point.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) mentioned the uncertain future of community hospitals, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) echoed what he said, pointing out that many community hospitals have provided excellent care but face an uncertain future. That is a problem not just in Cumbria or Kent, but across the country, as many community hospitals are under threat. Although the Government have offered capital funding for community hospitals, the issue is not capital but revenue. As Jim Hacker found out, there is not much point in building a new hospital if one cannot treat the patients. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) echoed some of those concerns in his references to boom and bust in the health service.
	Concerns about the health service were shared by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)at least I think he was talking about the health service in that amazing display of fast talking. From what I gathered, in his area, too, there is a hospital development that is now not being funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) talked about the Government's need to accept the impact of their policies at grass-roots level. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) mentioned the specific problems of oxygen supplylike many other hon. Members, I have received complaints from constituents about that, as many people have been left in considerable difficulties as a result of the way in which the Government let the contract.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke in measured terms about the report published yesterday on the outbreak of a deadly infection in Stoke Mandeville, which led to 30 deaths. He also drew attention to the need for clinical decisions to take priority over Government targets, and I understand that that theme runs through the report.
	There was a note of praise for the health servicemy hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was grateful to the Government for listening to local people in relation to the arrangements for the Isle of Wight primary care trust, but he pointed outas he has assiduously in a number of debates, and in other ways in the Housethe problem of the lack of access to dentists for many of his constituents. That problem is echoed in many constituencies across the country.
	The most amazing contribution on the health service was made by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), who seemed to say that everything was fine and the problem was just the media, despite the fact that he has a petition with 20,000 signatures complaining about potential cuts in health services in his constituency. That suggests that there are problems there, rather than their simply being raised by the media. Jobs are being cut; we are not simply talking about headlines. He asked, in so many words, where all the money has gone. He said that many of his constituents felt that lots of money had gone into the health serviceindeed it hasbut in many areas the money is not being spent on improving care. In many areas hospitals are under threat of loss of services or, indeed, closure. What I thought was amazing about the contribution was that the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that many of the cuts are a direct result of Government policy. It is the constant structural change, bureaucracy and targets that are wasting so much money and taking it away from where it should be spent, on improving patient care.
	It is not surprising that many hon. Members referred to the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) spoke with passion about his view of the response of the international community. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) who, sadly, contributed to a recess Adjournment debate and is not present at the end of it, focused on the plight of civilians who bear the brunt of hostile action. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) spoke about the crisis, as did the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who was concerned at the Government's positionan issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight as well. Many of us were concerned at the Prime Minister's reported stance in discussions with the US President at the G8 summit, where he appeared to be willing to follow in the wake of the United States.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made a crucial point when she spoke of our need to provide proper resources for our troops. We send men and women out to fight on our behalf. It is only right that we should provide them with the resources necessary to do the job.
	Development issues, particularly garden grabbing, were highlighted by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Guildford. The hon. Member for Teignbridge also mentioned planning design standards and affordable housing, especially as it affects certain rural areas.
	Economic issues were discussed by a number of hon. Members. We had an interesting history lesson from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) on the past development of the city. He promoted Hartlepool as a tourist venue, and I wish him all the very best in encouraging greater numbers of tourists to visit it. I congratulate those who worked to ensure that Hartlepool will be the venue for the tall ships in the future.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made his customary impassioned plea for the economy of Cumbria, with particular reference to the plight of dairy farmers, and the interests of his constituents and others in Cumbria in relation to the continuation of the nuclear power plant in Cumbria and the value of Sellafield to the economy.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon who, I am afraid, also contributed to a recess Adjournment debate and is not in his place at the end of the debate, addressed an aspect of the economythe need to ensure that we apply science to improve our competitiveness. His point about the low numbers taking maths post-16 was well made.
	Another spirited performance came from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who promoted the interests of his constituents in relation to the A59, and also promoted the future of the joint strike fighter aircraft.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale raised four separate matters in his contribution. He spoke about the impact on the health of those living where buildings have been built on landfill sites, which is a concern in my constituency where development is proposed on landfill sites. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of wheel clamping which, sadly, have not gone away as a result of the Government's Act. As he noted, there is a still a lack of information for people about their own position. He also referred to the lack of access to the court register, a valid point that I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will take up. The hon. Member for North Swindon has come into the Chamber. I therefore apologise for my previous remark. Sadly, he missed what I said about him in other respects, but it is good of him to turn up eventually. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale also spoke about the hopes of the Daresbury research centre for the future work there. I know the impact that the decision about the location of the diamond synchrotron in Oxfordshire had on his constituency, so I wish him the best in his campaign.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) spoke with passion about her constituent caught up in the confusion of our citizenship laws, and also raised the need for funding for research on aspects of obesity. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke about the changes that have taken place in regiments in Northern Ireland, and rightly paid tribute to the commitment and gallantry with which members of those regiments serve in our armed forces. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned temporary event notices. We raised the issue with the Government on many occasions last year. They are the worst of all worlds. Not enough TENs are issued for most village halls, churches and schools to be able to do what they want to do, yet a loophole enables pubs to get round the conditions.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was right to raise the issue of the collapse of the world trade talks, which should be of concern to us all, particularly those campaigning for the interests of developing countries, and the poor in those countries. He also referred to the Government's action on the CSA. Sadly, it is rather less action than the Government were spinning in their headlines yesterday, and I fear that many families will be disappointed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) gave his usual thoughtful contribution, highlighting an issue that will be of real concern in futureendowment shortages. He also spoke, as he has done on other occasions, about the need for parents to have the right to choose where their children with special needs should be educated. I was interested in his index of family cohesion. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke up for a fair deal for Croydon.
	Throughout, a wide range of concerns have been raised; more than I have ever heard raised in a recess Adjournment debate before. I hope that the Government will listen seriously to the points and recognise the common thread that has run through so many of the contributions. The Government are wasting so much of our taxpayers' money and people sadly feel powerless as the Government ignore local views and fail to understand the impact that is caused by their policies.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very happy summer recess.

Nigel Griffiths: I have had the pleasure of listening to all 27 contributions in the debate and I shall respond to as many as I can, note the comments that I do not respond to on the Floor of the House, and draw them, where appropriate, to the responsible Minister's attention.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for raising the hospital question and highlighting the 500 million of additional expenditure that is going in, and I am sure that his neighbour and colleague, the Secretary of State for Health, will be aware of the issues that he has raised. In respect of his constituent whose conviction was quashed, I hope that he is seeking a meeting with the Minister. I understand that he has already raised the matter. I shall certainly make inquiries about the outcome of that. In respect of the compensation to a UK citizen who has business interests in the Lebanon, again I will ensure that his concerns are noted.
	There were widespread concerns throughout the House about what is happening in Lebanon. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East were at the Dispatch Box earlier today and explained our concerns unequivocally. The route that Israel has embarked on is folly in failing to target properly those Hezbollah bases, missiles and training camps, and by causing unnecessary suffering to civilians, including children, and also, as the Minister said earlier, unnecessary damage to the infrastructure that does not appear to be connected to the terrorist activities. I do not believe that Israel has done itself a good service in its reaction. Indeed, it has probably lost friends. Like all hon. Members, I unreservedly condemn Hezbollah. Its actions have been evil. To send off missiles into civilian populations indiscriminately by way of retaliation beggars belief, is completely unjustifiable and is provoking Israel beyond endurance.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised a number of issues, including temporary event notices. I and the Government expect the local authorities responsible for licensing to use their powers to the maximum to ensure that where the lives of local residents are being disrupted, they take action, whether through noise abatement enforcement or other powers. There are powers to close premises where temporary events are taking place and where disorder and public nuisance issues arise.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) mentioned an issue that affects his constituents and othersthe possible previous contamination of sites and the right of people to make what he called an informed choice. I shall certainly ensure that his message is reinforced with my ministerial colleagues. He mentioned a number of other important issues, including the way in which we treat the convictions of people who are mentally ill. Indeed, a Bill is being prepared at the moment, and I hope that it reassures the public on that issue.
	With great diligence, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) always raises the problems of rural farmers and of dairy farmers in particular. He mentioned a fact that may surprise hon. MembersCumbria is the slowest growing part of an economy in the EUand my hon. Friends would like to see the evidence to which he referred. He called for massive intervention and wants assisted area designation. I am not sure whether assisted area designation will be granted, but no one will put the case more forcefully than him. He also voiced his strong support for nuclear power and Sellafield and discussed the issue of community hospitals. While commending the Government on the 750 million allocated to community hospitals, like many hon. Members he voiced concerns about the provision of hospitals locally.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) spoke for many of us in her views on the present conflict in the middle east. She condemned the neo-cons, and I have some sympathy with that. I thought it disgraceful that Pat Buchanan could call for the assassination of an elected president in south America. He is not the sort of person who should be granted the right to come to Britain until he completely rejects such dreadful views. She also discussed nuclear power and Trident, both of which will be subject to intense debates, and votes, in this Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) spoke about the problems with public service contracts. She mentioned the issue of oxygen cylinders, of which I am aware. There are a number of contracts, and my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health are actively ensuring that officials monitor all contracts to ensure that the sort of problems raised by her and by another hon. Member are tackled, so that the provision reaches the best of the providers and not providers that are less than adequate for meeting the needs of her constituents and others. She mentioned the important issue of equipment for the armed forces, and I am sure that all Ministry of Defence Ministers monitor that matter with great care.
	On the same subject, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the honourable role played by former members of the armed forces in policing, which, as he said, should be recognised. I understand that my ministerial colleagues are examining that matter in response to his representations and others.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) highlighted a key problem involving her constituent and I shall ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of colleagues, because it seems most unfair.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) praised his health authority and highlighted some problems. I am aware of many of the issues because I have been studying a few of the reports in the past week, such as, Learning the lessons from financial failures in the NHS, which highlights the 25 trusts that are responsible for 70 per cent. of the overspend. Those trusts show a catalogue of mismanagement and poor financial control.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned his local problems. I refer him to a fairly damning report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on his own trust, which highlighted the mismanagement and problems there. It is important that all Members read those reports and find out, if their health trusts are listed there, what they should be doing to address the problems
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Compensation Act 2006
	Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006
	International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006
	Government of Wales Act 2006
	Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006

PETITIONS

NHS (Oxfordshire)

Tony Baldry: Several weeks ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I presented a petition of many thousands of signatures on the NHS in Oxfordshire, being particularly concerned that Oxfordshire receives the lowest funding for treatment per patient and declaring that the blatant discrimination in the funding system for the NHS is not fair. Since then, I have received approximately 1,500 more signatures to the petition. As those people's views are equally valid, I wish it to be recorded that they present a petition wishing also to have their views noted.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to urgently review the funding system for the NHS in England and Wales, to introduce fairer funding for the whole NHS, and to stop staff, patients and families in Oxfordshire and other parts of the country being penalised.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Luton Airport

Michael Penning: I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents to share their concerns at the expansion of Luton airport, which I share.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of residents of Hemel Hempstead constituency,
	Declares that the Operator's Master Plan for Luton Airport must be rejected because:
	It goes far beyond the options on which the Government consulted, since it involves two runways, not one, and extra terminal increasing the scale and capacity;
	The Government's own calculations show it is the least cost effective location;
	It is the only option without a direct rail link to the airport, so most of the 30 million would arrive and depart by car;
	It is closed by bad weather more than any other London airport;
	The airspace overhead is more crowded;
	It is nearest a built up area;
	It would involve building on a large swathe of green belt land.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that Luton airport remains a medium haul, medium sized airport and to refuse permission for plans to make it second only in capacity to Heathrow.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Hemel Hempstead Hospital

Michael Penning: I wish to present a petition, which was signed by 6,718 constituents who have grave concerns about the future of the Hemel Hempstead hospital and the closure of acute services, especially the closure of the award-winning Hemel Hempstead birthing centre.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of the borough of Dacorum and others
	Declares the Petitioners' serious concerns about the plans of West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust to cut health provision, including the removal of acute services from Hemel Hempstead hospital and the closure of the birthing unit.
	The Petitioners further declare that the cuts are aimed at generating financial savings and are not based on clinical expertise or need.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to use her powers to reverse the proposed plans and to visit Hemel Hempstead hospital at her earliest opportunity to address the concerns of the residents.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Asbestos Waste Storage (Essex)

Bob Spink: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents railing against an asbestos site. I have presented previous petitions on the subject and I have another with 250 signatures. The petitioners especially wanted the House of Commons to receive their petition. They claim that the storage of hazardous asbestos waste would introduce unacceptable risks to residential properties and a school that is near the plant, that it would put local roads under increased pressure and risk, and that there are far more appropriate sites for that activity in Castle Point and in Essex generally.
	The Petitioners therefore implore the House of Commons to call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Essex county council reject the application as requested by the Member of Parliament for Castle Point.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Road Safety (Leicester)

Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition that has been co-ordinated by Peter Price of 2 Birkdale court, 189 Evington lane, Leicester about the speeding of traffic along Evington lane, which is causing enormous concern to local residents and me.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners vigorously oppose the excessive speeding along Evington lane from the village to the junction of Wakerley road.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that speed notification signage is erected at appropriate points, a pedestrian crossing is created near Hawthorn drive and speed monitoring equipment is installed without delay.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Lewsey Road Occupational Therapy Workshop

Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition signed by some 367 constituents, many of them stroke patients and their carers. They are most upset by the closure on 23 June of the Lewsey road occupational therapy workshop in Luton. They tell me that they were given only two weeks' notice of the decision.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the residents of South Bedfordshire and others
	Declares that the Petitioners object to the closure on 23 June of Lewsey road occupational therapy work shop for stroke patients and others.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to intervene on the Petitioners' behalf with Luton and Dunstable hospital and the Bedfordshire and Luton Mental Health and Social Care Partnership Trust to reopen the Lewsey road occupational therapy work shop, which is an important facility for stroke patients and others.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Conquest Hospital

Michael Jabez Foster: In the living memory of the constituents of Hastings and Rye, there has always been an accident and emergency department in the constituency, but it is now under threat. Consequently, Mr. John Baker, Mrs. Margaret Baker and the Friends of the Conquest hospital have produced a petition, which I am happy to present. With the help of the  Hastings  St. Leonards Observer, some 20,200 names have been added.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of John Baker, Chairman of Friends of the Conquest, and others,
	Declares that the residents of Hastings and Rother, in the 60th year of the NHS, appreciate the services delivered at the local Conquest hospital.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct health authorities to ensure that any reorganisations will not involve the downgrading of existing services at the Conquest hospital or in any way compromise the accident and emergency service now provided.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Roseneath and Lea House Residential Nursing Homes

William Cash: I have the honour to present a petition in respect of the proposed closure of Roseneath and Lea House residential nursing homes, in the name of Mr. Robert Hall. There are 2,100 signatories to the petition, and they condemn the proposed closure of the said residential nursing homes.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the residents, family and staff of the Roseneath residential nursing home in Stone and Lea House in Madeley,
	Sheweth that the Petitioners object to the proposed closure of Roseneath and Lea House residential nursing homes.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government and Staffordshire County Council to hold a comprehensive consultation and reconsider plans to close Roseneath and Lea House residential nursing homes.
	And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

BEVIN BOYS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Jonathan Shaw.]

Kevan Jones: I want to start by saying how pleased I am to have secured this Adjournment debate to raise the plight of the Bevin Boys. Before I turn to the main part of my speech, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue since he entered the House. I should also like to congratulate the  Sunday Express on its campaign on behalf of the Bevin Boys, the forgotten heroes of the second world war.
	In 1943, this country faced a crisis in coal production that put our ability to win the second world war in jeopardy. More than 36,000 miners had left the mines to fight for their country, and our coal reserves had fallen so low by the end of the year that we were down to less than three weeks' supply. The Government made pleas to volunteers to enlist for mine work, but, unfortunately, they raised very few recruits. When the shortage reached a crisis in December 1943, the then Minister for Labour and National Service, Ernest Bevin, decided that a certain percentage of draftees would be directed into the pits to make up the manpower shortage. Speaking at a conscription meeting in 1943, he said:
	We need 720,000 men continuously employed in this industry. This is where you boys come in.
	That is how the term Bevin Boys was born.
	Chosen at random from among the conscripts, nearly 48,000 Bevin Boys were drafted into the pits in the United Kingdom, and, after 1943, 10 per cent. of all conscripts between the ages of 18 and 25 were picked for service in Britain's coal mines. To make the process random, one of Bevin's secretaries would pull random numbers from a hat. All the men whose draft numbers ended in those digits would be sent to the coal mines, with the exception of those who were in highly skilled occupations.
	This random process resulted in people being picked from a whole array of professions, from desk jobs to manual work. Among the Bevin Boys who subsequently became famous were Jimmy Savile and Eric Morecambe. While I was researching the subject today, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) told me that his father, Albert Campbell, had been a Bevin Boy. He is still alive and living in Consett, and I would like to pay tribute to his efforts on behalf of his country during the second world war as a Bevin Boy.
	Those young men were sent into many of the pits across the United Kingdom. In Chester-le-Street, in my constituency, a famous Bevin Boy was Jock Purdon. Jock married and stayed in Chester-le-Street after the war, and worked in the pits digging coal in 3 ft seams with water up to his knees. His experiences in the mines shaped his poems and songs, and led to his being known as the miners' poet. His famous Bevin Boys Lament was put together in the Plough public house next to Pelaw pit in the 1940s.
	Before working in the pits, the Bevin Boys would be given six weeks' training. In some cases, however, there is documentation showing that that training period was cut down to six days. It was physically hard work with long shifts and dangerous conditions. Bevin Boys did not wear any uniforms or badges but the oldest clothes that they could find. All that they were given were helmets, steel toecap boots and accommodation that came to be known as Bevin huts. Being of military age and without uniform caused many Bevin Boys to be stopped by the police and questioned about avoiding the call-up. They were also loathed in many areas by service personnel who thought that they were conscientious objectorsa misconception that, alas, continues today.
	It must be emphasised that these young men were conscriptsnone was a volunteerand were made to work in the pits of the UK, just as their friends were conscripted into the Army, Navy and Air Force. Their pre-conscription employment was not protected, and those injured were not eligible for pensions as they were considered civilians. They did not get travel warrants to travel home, nor did they use the NAAFI at railway stations or any other comforts open to servicemen. More importantly, many of them continued working in the pits right up until 1948, long after many of their compatriots who had been in the armed forces had been demobilised. Clearly, this is an issue for the Ministry of Defence, not the Department of Trade and Industry, as these men were conscripts, and would not have worked in the mines unless the Government of the time had conscripted them to do so.
	It is nearly 60 years since the Bevin Boys were demobilised, and those conscripted to work in the pits are now old men. There is little that we can to do to right the wrongs that occurred during and immediately after the war. I hope, however, that we can agree on three points: first, that these men were treated badly during and after their service; secondly, that they carried out a vital role in the fight against fascism and made a vital contribution to securing the freedoms that we take for granted today; and, thirdly, that their efforts on behalf of the nation should be recognised.
	This Government have an excellent record in honouring service veterans. We have had veterans day and veterans badges, which have been warmly welcomed up and down the country. Last month, I attended an excellent veterans day event in Chester-le-Street in my constituency, and saw the pride with which many of the veterans present received their badges. It is sad that the Bevin Boys have been left out, and I hope that the Government can put that right.
	I know that Ministers, especially those at the Ministry of Defence, do not necessarily like to make decisions that have no precedent or that may be seen to set unhelpful new precedents. I therefore have news for the Minister. He recently launched the merchant seafarers badge of honourthe veterans badge for those who served in the merchant navy at any time up to 31 December 1959. I hope that a similar badge can be presented to the Bevin Boys.
	When Ernest Bevin made his famous speech in 1943, in which he said,
	that is where you boys come in,
	he also said:
	Our fighting men will not be able to achieve their purpose unless we get an adequate supply of coal.
	We were able to secure adequate coal supplies, and our fighting men were able to achieve the purpose of defeating fascism. It is right to recognise the fight of men and women, through Remembrance Sunday, veterans day and the excellent veterans badges. It is now time to pay a similar tribute to the Bevin Boys, without whose service and sacrifice we would not have been able to defeat fascism in those dark days of the second world war.

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for giving me an opportunity to speak. The House will know that I have raised the issue of the Bevin Boys on a number of occasions, and have been in regular contact with the both the Minister and the Prime Minister. I am grateful for their responses, although for me they do not solve the problem.
	I want to say something about the recognition that the Bevin Boys have been given so far. There was absolutely nothing until 1995, when they were honoured by a reference in speeches by John Major and by the Queen. There have been two more instances of recognition, although in my opinion they did not adequately reflect the duty that the Bevin Boys gave.
	My hon. Friend has already explained the role of the Bevin Boys, but it is important to stress that in the eyes of many, our Government have an unpaid debt to the survivors, and those who are no longer with us. I tabled early-day motion 1417 in, I believe, February this year, and I am delighted that 173 of my fellow parliamentariansalthough, unfortunately, no SNP Membershave seen fit to join me in a campaign which, as my hon. Friend said, has been supported by the  Sunday Express.
	The Ministry of Defence has an obligation and, in my opinion, a moral duty to recognise formally that it has a debt of gratitude to each Bevin Boy on behalf of us all. As we have heard, had it not been for their efforts in 1943 and onwards we might well not be having this debate tonight, and as we have heard, their role was vital to our war effort, owing to the dwindling number of miners. These conscripts fought their own battles in the mines and on the streets of Britain, andas we have heard tonightthey often faced attack and ridicule as draft dodgers because they had no uniforms to wear when off duty.
	A fair amount has been written and spoken, not least by me, about some of the more famous Bevin Boys. As we have heardagainthey include Jimmy Savile, Lord Rix and, of course, one of Britain's funniest ever comedians, Eric Morecambe. However, I want to refer to some less famous, but no less worthy, Bevin Boys.
	Fraser Neil is now 80 years old. He comes from Comrie in my constituency. He first drew my attention to the injustice delivered to the Bevin Boys, and rightly described them as the forgotten conscripts. John Etty from Fleetwood is a life member of the Bevin Boys Association. He served from 1945 until 1948, and went on to play rugby league for Wakefield Trinity. Warwick Taylor, vice-president of the Bevin Boys Association and author of The Forgotten Conscripts, works relentlessly to keep the Bevin Boys' lamp burning. Mr. Pearce from Harrogate has written to me, as well as other Bevin Boys such as the Booth family from Bristol, the Kilmaster family from Hanham and the Young family from Hinckley. Those are some of the families and supporters of the Bevin Boys who understand the importance of this campaign.
	I want to quote from a poem by Ron Leach from Great Barr, a former Bevin Boy. It is entitled The 'Unsung' Bevin Boys of World War Two. Let me briefly paint the picture by reciting a small excerpt:
	Some men helped to win the war
	But never marched in lines
	A desperate Government made new laws...
	To send men down the mines.
	Into the pits these men were sent
	(Although prepared to fight!)
	A conscripted force of ten per cent.
	To work where day was night.
	From any job in any street
	To pit work they did go...
	Instead of war and marching feet
	Their 'enemy' was below.
	It is a very moving poem, and I recommend it to the Minister.
	Bevin Boys died for their country. In 1945, Winston Churchill asked the Minister of Labour
	What will become of the Bevin Boys after the German war is over?
	I believe it is a travesty that, 61 years later, we are still asking the same question.
	Forty-eight thousand Bevin Boys served our country, including at least one Member of this Houseperhaps more. I am happy that my campaign has received the support of many surviving Bevin Boys and families of Bevin Boys, as well as that of the Mining Association of the UK, NUM Scotland, UK Coal, Scottish Coal and the current Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), whose predecessor was a Bevin Boy.
	This is not a competition. Armed service veterans are valued and honoured, as is appropriate; I ask only for the same for the Bevin Boys. Members of the land army, including my own mother, are to be applauded for the work that they did in feeding a fighting nation, but they were not Ministry of Defence conscripts, and the Bevin Boys were. The same applies to miners who worked in the industry by choice, including my father, many uncles and my grandfather. Many of them found their way to an early grave by way of disaster or disease. At least they made their employment decisions with a modicum of choice; the Bevin Boys had no choice.
	For anyone who wishes to get a fuller grasp of issues surrounding the Bevin Boys, I recommend two books: The Forgotten Conscript by Warwick Taylor, which I see the Minister has with him tonight, and A Bevin Boy's Story by George Ralston. When the Minister has finished reading his copy of The Forgotten Conscript, he could perhaps pass it on to other Ministers and officials, as it might well influence their thinking appropriately.
	The Bevin Boys, sadly, are a dying breed. Many are in their 80s and in ill health. This is the time to act to honour their individual role in the second world war, and the need has never been more pressing. The old ones are the best, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you will recall that I mentioned earlier the fact that Jimmy Savile was a Bevin Boy. I urge the Government to do the right thing by these brave men rather than rely on Jim to fix it.

Tom Watson: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing this debatethe last but not the least before the summer recesson the important topic of recognition for the Bevin Boys. I would like to express my gratitude to other hon. Members who have brought the matter to public attention, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who has been a great advocate for the Bevin Boys. We all agree that although my hon. Friend has been in the House for only 18 months, he has already found a powerful voice in the Chamber, representing his constituents with great potency.
	I would also like to thank two other people who helped me prepare for this evening's debate. Rather unconventionally, I would like to thank Jeremy Williams and Group Captain Barrie Thomson from my private office. Sadly, they are leaving me at the end of the week, but they have spent many sleepless nights preparing for this and other debates. I want to put on record my appreciation for their support.
	I also pay tribute to the Bevin Boys Association, which works tirelessly to raise awareness and educate the wider public about the cause. The association has more than 1,800 members from the United Kingdom and overseas. Both my hon. Friends have already congratulated the  Sunday Express on its vigorous efforts to bring the Bevin Boys to a wider audience, and I would like to add my tribute. The fact that its readers have been so enthusiastic in supporting the campaign is greatly encouraging. It shows that the contribution of all those who strove to defeat our enemies in Europe and the far east is not forgotten. There are still people out there who want to honour our veterans and the contribution that they made in their own personal way.
	The matter was raised in a question to the Prime Minister on 15 February, and again in the well supported early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire earlier this year. He will know that the Prime Minister has given a personal undertaking to look into the subject. Both the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues are doing so.
	As my hon. Friends are well aware, the Bevin Boys played a crucial role in contributing to the ultimate allied success in the second world war. They both mentioned that coal miningessential to the war effortwas suffering from a severe shortage of manpower by 1943. In December that year, following an inadequate response to an optional scheme, Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour at the time, decided to select men of call-up age for the mines by conscription. The system was to some extent arbitrary: one in 10 men aged 18 to 25 were selected by means of a ballot. If the last number of their national service registration number matched one of those drawn out of a hat at the Ministry of Labour headquarters, they were destined to become conscript minersBevin Boys.
	If anyone thinks that the contribution of the Bevin Boys was any less than that of other forces, they should look at the release from the Minister of Labour dated 2 December 1943:
	I want to say that the Government would not have resorted to this scheme of compulsion had it not been for the most urgent national necessity. There is no form of service which at this stage of the war is in greater need of young active recruits. Those who are chosen for transfer to coalmining will be doing their war service in a form that is as important as any, and I am sure that they will do their best to make a success of it.
	Well, they certainly did that.
	During those bleak years of the war, the Bevin Boys worked in the unpleasant and potentially hazardous conditions of the mines to supply Britain's coalthe driving force behind much of the war effort. Without their hard work in dangerous conditions, the struggle against the enemy would have quite literally ground to a halt.

Dan Norris: Of course the Bevin Boys' contribution was very significant, but 700,000 regular miners also contributed to the war effort, and we should not forget them.

Tom Watson: With my family background and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sitting next to my hon. Friend, how could I possibly forget those 700,000 existing miners? However, the subject of the debate is the Bevin Boys, and if he will allow me, I will concern myself with their contribution.
	Many Bevin Boys felt then and subsequently that their contribution to the war was misunderstood or overlooked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire vividly depicted in his early-day motion on the subject, some Bevin Boys suffered the experience of being regularly mistaken for draft dodgers, deserters or even enemy agents. That past neglect makes it even more important that their determined efforts are not forgotten now. If that were not bad enough, the Bevin Boys also had to purchase their own equipment, having been conscripted, which sometimes added insult to injury. So let me, in the Chamber tonight, unequivocally pay tribute to their contribution.
	We tend to associate the Bevin Boys with the 21,800 men who were conscripted miners, balloted from among those called up to the armed forces. However, not all the Bevin Boys were allocated to the mines reluctantly. They served alongside some 16,000 other Bevin Boys who had opted for coalmining in preference to the forces when they were called up. A further 7,000 volunteered to work in the coalmines before being called up, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) has mentioned existing miners as well. Of course, all of them worked alongside the existing miners, and not all Bevin Boys were unwilling in their endeavours. However, whether they were there by compulsion or personal choice, all of them fulfilled an essential role in their country's hour of need.
	After being selected, Bevin Boys were sent to one of the 13 training collieries for a month of basic training before being sent to a colliery. They would live either in lodgings or a purpose-built hostel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has mentioned, some hostels, such as the one at Oakdale, consisted of Nissen huts linked together in blocks by short brick passageways. Unlike the ordinary miners, who wore their own clothes, Bevin Boys were issued with overalls, safety helmets and working boots; but that was all that they got, and paying for their other equipment must have been quite a shock to the system.
	Only a small proportion of Bevin Boys were actually employed cutting coal on the coal face, although some worked as assistants filling tubs or drams. The majority of them worked on the maintenance of haulage roads, attached and detached drams or tubs or generally controlled the movement of underground transport. Those employed on the transport of coal and other supplies were at nearly as great a risk of death or injury as those who worked on the coal faces. The continuous handling and movement of drams or tubs caused many injuries to fingers and hands and, more seriously, could result in death from being crushed under swiftly moving vehicles.
	I recently had the honour of talking to Warwick Taylor, the vice-president of the Bevin Boys Association. An ex-Bevin Boy himself, he is also the author of the book, The Forgotten Conscript, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has mentioned. I heartily commend it to hon. Members. It is a good read and gives a very vivid picture of life as a Bevin Boy. Mr. Taylor and I were both at the National Memorial Arboretum in June to mark national service day. It was a remarkable day in many ways and very well supported, but the biggest cheer of the day was for Mr. Taylor, when he came forward in his miner's helmet to lay a wreath on behalf of the association. I pay tribute to the work that he does in that respect. I needed no clearer demonstration of the high regard in which the Bevin Boys are held, and I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the recent inclusion of the Bevin Boys in the remembrance day service and other commemorative events around the country.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sure that the Minister is also aware that every year the miners gala is held in my constituency, and we always have a contingent from the Bevin Boyssadly, a dwindling contingent. I wonder whether he could give us some indication of whether we will have some good news to pass on to the Bevin Boys next year.

Tom Watson: Let us hope so. I pay tribute to the Durham miners. I have never actually been to the Durham miners gala, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will regard as a shameful thing. In fact, I have never been invited; I should go one of these days.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I have great pleasure in inviting him to attend the Durham miners gala next year.  [Interruption.]

Tom Watson: I have seized the moment, DennisI am not allowed to say that, am I, Madam Deputy Speaker? Anyway, all five of us Members present will have a good day out at the Durham miners gala next year.
	I also share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that we celebrate and commemorate the Bevin Boys' contribution. The association has a powerful platform, with two national events this year alonein Stratford-upon-Avon and the Isle of Wightand a dozen other reunions and parades throughout the country. I asked Mr. Taylor how he would sum up the Bevin Boys in a single word and he replied, camaraderie. These remarkable individuals were thrown together 60 years ago and have remained linked by a common bond ever since.
	I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that, as Minister with responsibility for veterans, I will take these issues into account when looking at what might be done to promote wider recognition of the Bevin Boys. I will have to do so in consultation with ministerial colleagues who have an interest in these issues, but I can say to my hon. Friends present that they have made a very compelling case for the creation of a specific badge for the Bevin Boysa case that warrants more detailed examination. I pledge tonight to give it that, perhaps over the summer break, and to get back to them when we return later in the year.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will know, I am of an age that means that I used to write letters to Jimmy Savile, but he never wrote back to me. So although Jim never fixed it for me, perhaps, between us, we can fix it for Jim. If we do manage to create a Bevin Boys badge, perhaps we can invite him to the House of Commons and present it to him personally. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would like to be at that event to share his personal views [Interruption.] What a lively evening we will have together, if Jimmy is indeed a Conservative voter.
	For many years the Bevin Boys regarded themselves as the forgotten conscripts. I hope that we can all play our part in putting the record straight.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eight o'clock.